OF  THE 

CITIZENS'  COMMITTEE 


University  Affairs. 

CINCINNATI,  O.,  APRIL,  1900. 


FINAL  REPORT 


OF  THE 


CITIZENS'  COMMITTEE 


ON 


University  Affairs. 


CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  APRIL,  1900. 


<< PROGRESS  in  Education  comes  from  the  college  rather  than 
from  the  elementary  school.  I believe  it  is  simply  because  all 
progress  in  this  world  comes  from  holding  up  and  struggling 
toward  ideals;  and  the  college,  standing  at  the  summit  of  edu- 
cation, holds  up  the  ideal  standard,  and  always  has.  Let  us 
hope  that  the  American  college  always  will." 

[From  a recent  address  by  President  Eliot.] 


SYNOPSIS, 


PAGE. 

1.  Unauspicious  opening  of  the  college  year i 

2.  Abrupt  and  sweeping  demand  for  resignations 2 

3.  Emphatic  protest  and  peremptory  resignation  of  Professor 

Myers  in  an  open  letter 6 

4.  Public  opinion  finds  expression  in  the  organization  of  a Citi- 

zens’ Committee,  which  appoints  a subcommittee  for  investi- 
gation   14 

5.  Report  of  the  Subcommittee  to  the  General  Committee  of 

Citizens. — Searching  light  thrown  on  the  situation. — The 
Faculty  vindicated  and  President  Ayers  arraigned. — The  Sub- 
committee instructed  to  appear  in  behalf  of  the  Faculty  at 
the  next  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors 19 

6.  Pleas  for  justice  before  the  Board  of  Directors. — A public 

hearing  of  the  Faculty  requested. — Petition  of  the  Faculty 
for  an  open  investigation  returned  to  the  writers  by  reason 
of  an  alleged  informality. — Special  Committee  of  the  Board 
appointed  to  draw  up  a reply  to  the  Citizens’  Committee  and 
report  at  a special  meeting. — The  minority  denied  repre- 
sentation   40 

7.  The  Special  Committee  of  the  Board  makes  an  elaborate 

report. — Indiscriminate  accusations. — General  defense  of  the 
Board  and  of  the  President. — The  request  of  citizens  re- 
fused.— A hearing  not  granted 51 

8.  Resignation  of  Professor  French. — The  report  accompanying 
the  resignation,  not  presented  by  the  President,  although 
addressed  to  the  Board  of  Directors. — The  Board  declines 
to  hear,  the  report  when  a demand  therefor  is  made  by  one 

of  its  members 63 

9.  Remarkable  admissions  by  President  Ayers 68 

10.  The  report  of  Professor  French 69 

11.  Review  of  the  Board’s  defense 76 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  University  of  Cincinnati  was  formally  organized  in 
the  year  1874.  The  original  endowment,  provided  by 
the  will  of  Charles  McMicken,  who  died  in  1858,  has  been 
supplemented  by  liberal  gifts  from  public-spirited  citizens 
and  bwa  tax  levy  not  exceeding  three-tenths  of  a mill  on  the 
general  duplicate  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati.  For  twenty  years 
a building  erected  on  the  grounds  of  the  McMicken  home- 
stead served  for  all  university  purposes.  In  1890  the  city  set 
apart  for  the  University  a tract  of  forty-three  acres  in  Burnet 
Woods  Park.  On  this  beautiful  site  now  stand  a com- 
modious central  building,  named  McMicken  Hall,  and  two 
spacious  buildings  devoted  to  Science,  to-wit,  Hanna  Hall  on 
the  north  and  Cunningham  Hall  on  the  south.  The  Van 
Wormer  Library  is  now  in  process  of  erection.  The  Med- 
ical and  Law  Departments  occupy  separate  buildings  in  the 
city.  In  the  academic  department  the  attendance  of  students 
has  steadily  increased  to  a number  now  in  excess  of  400,  not 
including  extension  students.  The  year  ending  with  June, 
1899,  was  especially  marked  by  benefactions,  including 
a gift  of  $60,000  for  Cunningham  Hall,  the  magnifi- 
cent Clarke  Library  and  a gift  of  $60,000  for  a library 
building.  The  rapid  expansion  of  the  University  emphasized 
the  long  recognized  need  of  a President,  and  in  June,  1899, 
Professor  Howard  Ayers  was  elected  to  this  position.  In 
January  he  startled  the  academic  world  by  abruptly  demand- 


ing  the  resignations  of  the  greater  part  of  the  faculty,  to  take 
effect  July  i,  1900.  Men  who  have  spent  the  best  part  of 
their  lives  in  bringing  the  University  to  the  creditable  status 
attained,  against  whose  character  and  professional  attain- 
ments no  word  of  disparagement  had  ever  been  uttered,  and 
whose  successful  work  is  a standing  proof  of  their  efficiency, 
were  suddenly  called  upon  to  resign  and  no  reasons  given. 
The  developments  attending  this  revolutionary  measure  have 
been  so  astounding,  and  so  fraught  with  serious  omen  for 
the  future  of  the  University,  as  to  deserve  a permanent 
record.  The  following  pages  consist  of  authentic  reports 
compiled  in  the  main  from  the  daily  press,  and  arranged  in 
proper  connection.  All  evidence,  as  presented  by -the  two 
sides,  is  given  in  full. 

In  the  publication  of  this  report  the  Citizens’  Committee 
has  no  other  ends  in  view  than  those  of  justice,  morality  and 
truth,  the  only  foundation  on  which  a university  can  arise 
and  stand.  In  the  furtherance  of  these  aims  will  be  pro- 
moted What  is  most  vital  in  the  life  of  the  University. 


VI 


OPENING  OF  THE  FALL  TERM, 


SEPTEMBER,  1899. 


URING  the  summer  vacation  the  new  President  had 


u sent  out  circulars  in  great  numbers  inviting  various 
schools  to  enter  into  relations  with  the  University  whereby 
their  pupils  would  be  privileged  to  enter  the  University  on 
certificate,  that  is,  without  undergoing  an  examination. 

The  Registrar  and  Secretary  of  the  faculty  had  been  set 
aside  without  notification,  or  a word  of  explanation,  and  a 
new  Registrar,  without  any  experience,  had  been  appointed. 

The  registration  of  candidates  for  admission  had  been  be- 
gun in  June  and  was  completed  in  September.  The  faculty 
Registrar  appeared  promptly  at  the  office  to  instruct  the  new 
officer  and  to  assist  in  the  work.  To  his  great  surprise  he  dis- 
covered that  one  of  the  President’s  first  official  acts  was  in 
contravention  of  a most  vital  faculty  regulation  as  to  the  ad- 
mission of  students.  The  President  had  given  his  personal 
sanction  to  a certificate  from  a school  not  on  the  accredited 
list  and  not  entitled  to  such  recognition,  as  the  subsequent 
examination  of  the  candidate  proved. 

At  the  first  faculty  meeting,  routine  business  being  soon 
disposed  of,  the  members  of  the  faculty  looked  toward  the 
new  President  in  the  pleasant  anticipation  of  an  inaugural 
presentation  of  his  plans  in  so  far  as  the  faculty  might  be 
of  aid  in  their  execution.  He  said:  “If  there  is  no  further 
business  a motion  to  adjourn  will  be  in  order.”  Adjourn- 
ment followed  and  the  President  immediately  left  the  room. 
Astonishment  and  disappointment  were  written  on  every 
countenance.  Strained  relations  ensued  during  the  fol- 
lowing months,  yet  the  members  of  the  faculty  preserved  a 
careful  silence,  hoping  that  more  cordial  relations  would 
finally  prevail.  This"  hope  was  not  realized.  Of  actual  fric- 
tion, however,  there  was  none;  friction  implies  contact,  and 
the  President  held  aloof.  The  sequel  is  told  in  the  subjoined 
accounts  with  no  attempt  at  close  coordination. 


(i) 


2 


Resignations  Abruptly  Demanded. 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Jan.  13,  1900.] 

A wave  of  indignation  swept  over  the  student  body  of  the 
University  yesterday  afternoon  when  the  report  that  Presi- 
dent Howard  Ayers  had  asked  for  the  resignations  of  every 
member  of  the  faculty  reached  it.  The  news  of  the  alleged 
action  of  the  newly  appointed  President  astounded  the  stu- 
dents, and  when  its  full  import  was  borne  in  upon  them  the 
greatest  excitement  prevailed.  Classrooms  were  deserted 
and  the  students  gathered  in  the  halls  to  discuss  the  matter. 
Professors  were  besieged  with  questions,  but  little  satisfac- 
tion could  be  obtained.  It  was  decided  to  call  a mass  meet- 
ing of  the  students,  and  this  was  done. 

Before  the  students  had  assembled  in  Room  1 1 a message 
was  sent  to  them  by  President  Ayers,  stating  that  no  meeting 
would  be  permitted  unless  the  students  agreed  to  act  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  wishes,  and  asking  that  a committee  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mass  meeting  to  confer  with  him. 

In  pbedience  with  his  wishes  a committee,  consisting  of 
two  representatives  from  each  regular  class  and  two  from  the 
special  class,  was  appointed  to  meet  the  President.  On 
going  to  his  office  the  committee  were  met  with  a refusal  to 
answer  all  questions  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  resigna- 
tions, and  were  told  that  the  President  had  nothing  to  say  in 
the  matter  at  all ; that  nothing  was  known,  and  even  if  all 
the  facts  were  known  the  students  could  do  nothing.  This 
answer  of  the  President  to  the  students’  embassy  was  re- 
ceived with  dismay. 

This  move  on  their  part  having  resulted  in  a failure,  an 
effort  was  made  to  solve  the  difficulty  by  questioning  the  pro- 
fessors and  sending  the  committee  to  see  the  members  of  the 
University  Trustees.  Several  of  the  professors  admitted 
that  they  had  been  asked  for  their  resignations,  and  said  that 
no  reason  had  been  assigned  for  their  removal  other  than  that 
it  was  the  pleasure  of  the  President.  As  to  their  action  the 
professors  were  likewise  silent. 


3 


[Editorial  from  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Jan.  16,  1900.] 

The  Revolution  in  the  University* 


The  situation  at  the  University  of  Cincinnati  is  extremely 
grave.  The  President  is  supposed  to  have  taken  the  revolu- 
tionary action  of  demanding  the  resignations  of  the  entire 
faculty.  The  Board  of  Trustees  has  postponed  its  considera- 
tion of  his  action  and  the  public  is,  therefore,  ill-informed. 
To  pass  judgment  upon  the  President  would  be  premature. 
Nevertheless,  there  are  certain  general  considerations,  and 
certain  contingent  ones,  that  are  immediately  in  point. 

First  of  all,  a word  of  warning  should  be  given  the  stu- 
dents. They  should  be  politely,  but  firmly,  ordered  off  the 
stage.  They  are  not  in  the  remotest  degree  a factor  in  the 
present  affair.  The  factors  are  the  President,  the  directors, 
and  the  taxpayers  as  a body.  The  students,  who  contribute 
next  to  nothing  to  the  finances  of  the  University,  represent 
only  400  or  500  taxpayers.  The  city  of  Cincinnati  contains 
some  400,000  people.  The  student  body  of  the  University 
represents  an  insignificant  fraction  of  one  of  the  three  factors 
of  the  present  issue,  and,  therefore,  should  have  so  small  a 
voice  in  the  affair  that  it  is  not  worth  considering.  And  they 
should  remember  that  what  voice  they  have  is  as  taxpayers, 
not  as  students. 

But  while  the  students  have  no  right  to  demand  an  ex- 
planation, the  public  has.  The  city,  as  a whole,  has  the  same 
right  to  demand  an  explanation  from  President  Ayers  as,  in 
other  circumstances,  from  Mayor  Tafel.  Dr.  Ayers  is  new 
to  the  city  and  does  not,  apparently,  quite  understand  the 
situation.  Meanwhile,  without  as  yet  passing  judgment,  let 
us  glance  at  some  of  the  considerations  which  are  involved  in 
his  action. 

There  may,  of  course,  be  circumstances  which  justify  the 
part  of  dictator,  as  assumed  by  Dr.  Ayers.  It  may  be  that 
the  University  is  such  an  Augean  stable  that  only  such  drastic 
measures  as  this  herculean  performance  can  make  it  clean. 
If  that  be  the  case,  the  Board  of  Directors  is  in  a pretty  box. 
For  years  it  has  been  employing  a faculty  so  grossly  ineffi- 


4 


cient  that  the  new  President  can  do  nothing  worth  doing 
until  that  faculty  is  got  rid  of.  If  such  be  the  case,  the  first 
thing  which  the  University  needs  is  a new  Board  of  Directors. 

This  is  said  upon  the  assumption  that  the  President  is 
sincere  in  demanding  the  various  resignations.  But  there  is 
a general  rumor  that  he  is  not  sincere.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
how  Dr.  Ayers  could  justify  himself,  if  such  is  the  case.  It 
is  still  more  difficult  to  see  how  the  public  can  possibly  take 
sides  with  him. 

However,  there  are  those  who  believe  that  Dr.  Ayers  does 
not  intend  to  accept  the  resignations  he  has  demanded.  In 
the  mind  of  ordinary  human  nature  there  arises  incredulously 
the  question,  “Then  why  did  he  ask  for  them?”  Average 
human  nature,  as  represented  by  Cincinnati  taxpayers,  will 
go  on  asking  this  question.  If  he  has  any  sensible  answer  to 
this  question,  let  him  make  it  public.  Otherwise,  people  will 
draw  their  own  conclusions,  and  they  will  not  be  favorable  to 
Dr.  Ayers. 

To  sum  up,  this  revolutionary  action  is  of  so  strange  a 
nature  that  it  demands  immediate  explanation.  The  situa- 
tion is  so  grave  that  some  head  will  have  to  go.  If  Dr. 
Ayers  can  justify  his  action,  well  and  good — let  the  faculty 
go.  But  the  justification  carries  with  it  the  condemnation 
of  the  directors  and  their  heads  should  follow  those  of  the 
faculty.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Ayers  can  not  justify  his 
action,  his  own  head  is  the  one  to  be  taken  off. 


Central  Labor  Council  Passes  Resolutions. 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Jan.  16,  1900.] 

At  one  of  the  most  largely  attended  meetings  in  its  history 
the  Central  Labor  Council  last  night  adopted  resolutions 
strongly  denouncing  the  action  of  President  Ayers  in  de- 
manding the  resignations  of  the  professors  of  the  Cincinnati 
University.  The  Central  Labor  Council  is  a representative 
organization,  composed  of  delegates  from  the  various  labor 
unions  of  the  city,  whose  members  number  upward  of  20,000 
working  men  and  women. 


5 


THE  RESOLUTIONS. 

The  resolutions  last  night  were  introduced  by  Ernest 
Weir,  one  of  the  most  prominent  and  influential  trades  union- 
ists in  the  city,  and  were  as  follows : 

Whereas,  It  has  pleased  certain  moneyed  interests  to 
burden  the  University  of  Cincinnati  with  the  importation  of 
a President  for  the  institution ; and, 

Whereas,  The  uses  and  values  of  such  a President  are 
unknown  to  all  intelligent  men,  excepting  it  be  for  the  pur- 
pose of  destroying  the  popular  character  of  the  University 
and  making  it  a money  institution ; and, 

Whereas,  The  said  President  has  pleased  to  demand  of 
all  the  professors  of  the  academic  faculty  their  resignations, 
or  be  discharged ; and, 

Whereas,  We,  as  organized  workingmen,  have  often  op- 
portunity to  witness  and  experience  the  brutality  and  in- 
justice of  such  a proceeding  in  factories  and  workshops; 
therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Central  Labor  Council  condemns  the 
action  of  President  Ayers,  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati, 
in  this  matter.  We  extend  to  our  outraged  fellow  working- 
men in  the  academic  field  of  labor  our  hand  of  sympathy  and 
cooperation;  we  urge  them  to  organize  and  to  strike  against 
the  Obnoxious  Superintendent  of  the  Knowledge  Factory  in 
Burnet  Woods,  and  we  pledge  them  our  support  until  the 
petty  tyrant  is  driven  out  of  town — if  that  be  their  will. 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Jan.  16,  1900.] 

Calm  Before  Storm. 


BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES  OF  UNIVERSITY  HOLD  A QUIET  MEETING. 


The  placidity  of  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
the  Cincinnati  University,  Monday  afternoon,  is  said  by 
those  who  are  on  the  inside  to  be  the  calm  before  the  storm, 
and  that  the  reason  that  the  matter  of  the  resignations  of  the 


6 


professors  was  not  discussed  was  that  a note  of  discord  has 
been  discovered  and  the  members  of  the  Board  are  not  in 
harmony  on  the  proposed  changes.  It  is  said  that  before  the 
matter  is  publicly  discussed  a meeting  of  the  trustees  will  be 
held  far  from  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  public,  and  in  secret 
the  question  will  be  talked  over  and  some  sort  of  agreement 
thrashed  out.  Where  the  meeting  will  take  place  and  when 
is  a profound  secret,  which  the  members  of  the  Board  refuse 
to  divulge.  President  Ayers  may  not  be  present,  and  the 
Board  can  form  its  course  of  action  unembarrassed. 

In  the  meantime  the  student  body  and  the  interested  pro- 
fessors are  marking  time  and  awaiting  the  course  of  events. 
Their  course  is  problematical  and  the  daily  discussions  of  the 
reorganization  which  are  engrossing  alumni  and  student 
body  alike  bring  out  various  and  interesting  lights  on  the 
subject. 


Resignation  of  Professor  Myers* 


HE  REFUSES  TO  ACQUIESCE  IN  THE  ^PROFESSIONAL 
ASSASSINATION.” 


[From  the  Enquirer,  Jan.  26,  1900.] 

The  smoldering  fire  of  rebellion  which  has  existed  in  the 
ranks  of  the  members  of  the  University  faculty  since  Presi- 
dent Ayers  summarily  dismissed  eight  of  their  number  over 
a week  ago,  assumed  most  portentous  proportions  yesterday, 
when  Prof.  P.  V.  N.  Myers,  in  a long  and  eloquent  letter 
addressed  to  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  tendered 
his  resignation,  to  take  effect  as  soon  as  possible.  The  action 
of  Prof.  Myers  came  as  a complete  surprise  to  all  except  his 
immediate  confreres  of  the  faculty. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  when  President  Ayers  sub- 
mitted his  report  to  the  Board  of  Trustees  on  January  1 6,  he 
recommended  that  Prof.  Myers  be  one  of  the  few  members 


7 


of  the  faculty  to  be  retained.  Prof.  Myers  was  to  be  simply 
a lecturer  on  ancient  and  modern  history,  instead  of  pro- 
fessor, but  this  was  understood  to  be  at  his  own  request,  as 
He  wished  to  devote  his  time  to  historical  research. 

At  the  time  everything  appeared  to  be  going  satisfac- 
torily, but  from  Prof.  Myers’  action  yesterday  it  seems  that 
matters  were  not  as  smooth  as  they  appeared  to  be  on  the 
surface.  His  letter  explaining  his  action  gives  President 
Ayers  a fierce  scoring.  In  substance  he  claims  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  remain  in  the  University  as  long  as  President 
Ayers  is  at  the  head  of  the  institution,  for  by  his  recent 
action,  Prof.  Myers  alleges,  he  has  shown  himself  to  be  of  an 
almost  tyrannical  nature.  He  furthermore  states  that  the 
advent  and  actions  of  President  Ayers  have  disrupted  the 
University,  and  dealt  it  a blow  from  which  it  will  be  slow  in 
recovering.  He  characterizes  President  Ayers’  course  of 
procedure  as  “unreasonable,  tyrannical,  and  unrighteous.” 

The  resignation  of  Prof.  Myers  may  put  an  entirely  new 
aspect  on  the  condition  of  things  as  regards  the  faculty  and 
the  President.  He  is  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  prominent 
members  of  the  faculty,  and  has  a great  following  among 
those  interested  in  the  University,  who  will  be  in  a large 
measure  influenced  by  what  he  may  say  or  do.  His  action  is 
regarded  as  of  great  assistance  to  the  deposed  professors, 
coming  as  it  did  from  one  who  had  everything  to  lose  and 
nothing  to  gain  by  so  doing. 

* ^ 

PROFESSOR  MYERS'  LETTER, 


WHEREIN  HE  SETS  FORT(H  HIS  REASONS  FOR  LEAVING  THE 
UNIVERSITY. 

Prof.  Myers’  letter  of  resignation,  which,  as  stated  there- 
in, it  is  designed  shall  reach  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Trustees  and  President  Ayers  through  the  public  press 
rather  than  by  direct  communication;  is  as  follows : 


8 


AN  OPEN  LETTER  OF  RESIGNATION. 

“Cincinnati,  January  25,  1900. 

“Mr.  Oscar  Kuhn,  Chairman,  and  Members  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati — Gentle- 
men : I hereby  tender  my  resignation  of  the  position  I hold  in 
your  Academic  Faculty,  and  ask  that  you  relieve  me  at  the 
very  earliest  moment  practicable  of  the  duties  of  my  place. 
In  the  performance  of  this  act  I wish  first  to  express  to  you, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  to  your  fellow-members  of  the  Board,  my 
deep  appreciation  of  the  favors  I have  received  at  your  hands 
during  the  past  nine  years,  in  the  course  of  which  you  have 
honored  me  successively  with  the  positions  of  Lecturer  on 
History,  Assistant  Professor  of  History,  Professor  of 
History  and  Political  Economy,  and  finally  for  two  years 
with  that  of  Dean  of  the  Academic  Faculty.  In  now  volun- 
tarily severing  my  connection  with  your  honored  Board  and 
the  University  it  is  but  proper  that  I should  make  this  recog- 
nition of  the  courtesies  and  the  expressions  of  confidence 
with  which  in  the  past  you  have  honored  me. 

“And,  in  the  second  place,  I wish  to  explain,  though, 
perhaps,  there  is  no  need  that  I do  so,  why  I communicate 
with  you  in  this  unusual  way.  It  is  because  of  the  extra- 
ordinary condition  of  things  which  has  been  created  by  Presi- 
dent Ayers,  whereby  the  members  of  your  Academic  Faculty 
are  cut  off  from  all  regular  means  of  communication  with  you 
save  at  the  risk  of  what  is  dearer  than  life  itself. 

“With  this  single  word  in  explanation  of  my  reasons  for 
communicating  with  you  by  means  of  an  open  letter  I pass  to 
explain  briefly  why  I press  upon  you  the  immediate  accept- 
ance of  my  resignation. 

“It  is  because,  as  a believer  in  the  eternal  justice  of  God. 
and  as  a teacher  of  the  supremacy  of  the  law  of  righteousness 
in  human  life  and  history,  I cannot  consent  to  work  with 
President  Ayers,  as  he  has  asked  me  to  do,  in  carrying  on  the 
future  work  of  the  University,  since  by  so  doing,  I should  be 
giving  approval  to  the  professional  assassination — I cannot 


9 


use  a less  accusing  word — by  a comparative  stranger,  of  my 
colleagues  of  many  years,  some  of  whom  I have  come  to 
know  intimately,  and  through  such  knowledge  have  acquired 
the  right  to  declare  that  in  their  persons  has  been  violated 
every  principle  of  humanity  and  justice.  I prefer  exile  and 
even  death  with  them  to  association  with  him  who  has  so  un- 
righteously and  unfeelingly  struck  them  down  in  the  midst  of 
work  that  the  world  has  approved,  and  thus  brought  to  them 
unmeasured  and  unmerited  sorrow  and  bitterness  of  soul, 
and  well-nigh  destroyed  their  faith  in  God  and  in  man. 

“Had  there  been  in  this  ruthless  work  any  principle  and 
mode  of  procedure  that  rightminded  men  could  recognize  and 
approve  as  embodying  essential  justice  and  righteousness, 
then  it  would  be  the  duty  of  every  one  to  acquiesce  in  it  and 
to  maintain  silence — a silence  hallowed  by  profound  sym- 
pathy and  sorrow.  But  there  has  been  no  such  principle  or 
mode  of  procedure  here,  and  therefore  for  any  one  who 
knows  the  circumstances  and  the  facts  to  remain  silent  is  to 
outrage  the  most  sacred  and  inviolable  instincts  of  the  human 
soul.  It  is  abhorrent  to  the  universal  sense  of  justice  to  con- 
demn men  unheard  and  in  secret,  but  President  Ayers  has  not 
even  made  known  to  those  concerned  the  grounds  of  his 
action,  let  alone  the  giving  of  them  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard  in  their  own  defense. 

“They  have  been  struck  down  in  the  dark  by  one  who 
should  have  stood  to  them,  and  to  us  all,  in  the  sacred  rela- 
tion of  confiding  colleague,  helpful  friend  and  wise  coun- 
sellor, yet  who  during  the  half  year  that  he  has  been  our 
President  has  not  once  visited  a single  lecture  or' recitation 
room  in  the  Academic  Department,  or  come  into  any  proper 
or  sympathetic  relations  either  with  the  student  body  or  with 
any  member  of  the  teaching  staff,  though  every  one  has  been 
eager  to  cooperate  with  him  in  lifting  the  work  and  en- 
nobling the  mission  of  our  University. 

“Gentlemen  of  the  Directory,  listen  to  me.  It  is  not 
simply  the  professional  life  and  the  reputation  of  learned, 
and  honored,  and  honorable  men  who  have  served  you  long 


10 


and  faithfully  that  are  at  stake,  but  the  life  and  the  future  of 
our  University.  Your  President  promises  you  that  if  you 
will  let  him  work  unrestrained  his  own  will  and  good  pleas- 
ure, he  will  make  a great  institution  of  the  University  of  Cin- 
cinnati. Believe  me,  men  of  the  Board,  a great  university 
cannot  be  built  upon  a foundation  of  inhumanity,  unright- 
eousness, and  injustice.  Under  an  administration  that  at  the 
outset  degrades  the  tenure  by  which  every  professor  and  in- 
structor holds  his  position,  that  ignores  all  moral  distinctions, 
and  thereby  degrades  character,  the  University  of  Cincinnati 
must  speedily  fall  from  the  high  position  it  has  already  won, 
and  lose  all  honorable  and  moral  standing  among  the  uni- 
versities of  our  land. 

Since  President  Ayers  has  come  among  us  there  has 
fallen  a numbness  and  paralysis  like  death  upon  the  com- 
munal life  and  spirit  of  our  University.  Our  college 
community,  which  should  be  the  most  democratic  of 
all  communities,  where  life  should  be  the  expression 
of  the  law  of  freedom,  has  become  a community  in  which  all 
persons,  from  the  janitor  to  the  professors,  are  living  under 
an  undefined  law  of  lese  majesty,  that  renders  life  as  intoler- 
able as  under  a Tiberius  at  Rome,  since  here,  too,  ‘to  keep 
silence  is  as  dangerous  as  to  speak’,  for  silence  may  be  con- 
strued as  unfriendliness  toward  him  in  whose  hands  rests 
without  appeal  all  matters  touching  the  professional  life  and 
reputation  of  every  one  serving  under  him. 

“Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  the  same  stealthy  blow  that  has 
struck  down  the  men  of  your  faculty  has  pierced  the  heart  of 
the  University  committed  to  your  safe-guarding.  In  the 
atmosphere  of  distrust  and  apprehension  that  this  ruthless 
act  has  created,  nothing  that  is  generous,  eminent,  or  aspir- 
ing can  live.  The  very  soil  in  which  noble  sentiments  alone 
can  strike  root  and  find  nourishment  has  been  accursed,  and 
in  that  soil  nothing  can  flourish  save  the  noxious  growths  of 
selfishness,  servility,  and  sycophancy.  The  poisonous  air 
diffused  around  will  cause  to  wither  and  die  every  generous 
impulse.  It  will  benumb  every  fine  sensibility  and  paralyze 


11 


every  noble  faculty  of  the  young  men  and  young  women  who 
breathe  it.  It  will  render  apathetic  their  sense  of  justice, 
make  insensitive  their  feelings  of  humanity  and  kindliness, 
and  smother  in  their  souls,  every  germ  of  manliness  and 
womanliness. 

“Gentlemen  of  the  Directory,  I know  that  you  do  not 
understand  the  situation  of  things  or  discern  the  ultimate 
consequences  of  the  acts  you  now  are  sanctioning,  else  you 
would  not,  in  your  right-mindedness,  think  for  a moment  of 
sustaining  your  President  in  the  unreasonable,  tyrannical, 
and  unrighteous  course  that  he  has  entered  upon.  But  you 
say  that  you  cannot  give  a hearing  to  any  one  who  may  be 
wrongly  dealt  with  by  the  President  or  receive  any  appeals 
from  his  decisions,  for  the  reason  that  you  promised  him  your 
support  in  everything  that  he  might  do. 

“Men  of  the  Board,,  have  you  given  a promise  that  re- 
quires you  to  close  your  ears  to  all  appeals  made  in  the  great 
name  of  the  Eternal,  and  that  compels  you  to  follow  Presi- 
dent Ayers  as  he  tramples  under  foot  every  rule  of  courtesy 
and  traverses  the  majestic  laws  of  justice?  Have  you  put 
out  any  promise  to  him  as  sacred  as  that  which  you  made  to 
this  community  when  before  God  you  took  your  oath  of  office 
and  solemnly  promised  all  good  men  that  you  would  hold 
your  sacred  trust  with  constant  open-mindedness,  and  with 
alert  and  unbound  conscience? 

“There  is  a final  reason,  gentlemen,  for  my  action.  For 
me  to  remain  as  a teacher  in  the  University  under  the  ad- 
ministration so  unhappily  inaugurated  would  be  to  undo  the 
work  of  my  past  life,  and  to  impart  a false  note  to  all  my  in- 
struction. I have  ever  held  up  before  the  young  men  and 
young  women  to  whom  I have  had  the  privilege  and  honor 
to  stand  in  the  relation  of  teacher,  friend,  and  guide  as  the 
loftiest  ideal  of  conduct,  unswerving  fidelity  to  conscience 
and  the  dictates  of  duty.  I have  told  them  never  to  follow 
expediency,  but  ever  fearlessly  to  follow  close  after  right  and 
justice,  regardless  of  consequences.  If  I,  myself,  as  I now 
stand  at  a parting  of  ways,  should  falter  and  fail  to  act  in 


12 


accordance  with  my  own  teachings,  should  hesitate,  because 
of  the  pain  and  sacrifice  that  the  act  involves,  to  set  my  feet 
in  the  path  which  is  plainly  the  path  of  honor  and  of  duty, 
how  could  I ever  again  tell  the  young  of  the  regnancy  of  con- 
science, of  the  majesty  of  the  eternal  laws  of  righteousness, 
of  the  divineness  and  inviolability  of  justice,  save  in  words 
that  would  ring  hollow  as  sounding  brass  ? 

“Men  of  the  Board,  you  will  believe  me  when  I say  that 
it  is  a hard  and  bitter  thing  which  has  been  laid  upon  me  to 
do.  But  as  I now  go  out  with  my  wronged  comrades  into 
exile  from  the  happy  labors,  and  from  the  places  and  the  as- 
sociations I have  loved,  it  is  with  the  consoling  thought  that 
the  just  God  knows  in  what  .spirit  and  from  what  motives  I 
have  acted,  and  with  that  I am  content. 

“I  have  the  honor,  gentlemen  of  the  Directory,  to  remain, 
Respectfully  yours,  “P.  V.  N.  Myers.” 


Representative  Views  of  an  Incensed  Citizen* 


THE  UNIVERSITY  MATTER. 


To  the  Editor  of  the  Commercial  Tribune: 

The  resignation  of  Prof.  Myers,  as  set  forth  in  your 
issue  of  Friday,  makes  clear  what  has  been  by  many  only 
suspected,  namely,  that  a great  wrong  has  been  committed  in 
the  late  secret  action  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Uni- 
versity. It  is  a matter  which  concerns  not  only  the  instruc- 
tors whose  names  have  thus  been  branded  in  the  eyes  of  the 
world,  but  every  citizen  of  Cincinnati  who  is  conscious  of  and 
cares  for  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong.  Every 
such  citizen  must  feel  that  he,  too,  as  well  as  the  professors, 
has  been  “assassinated”  in  the  overthrow  of  principles  of 
justice  and  right.  The  method  pursued,  namely,  of  remov- 
ing almost  a whole  faculty  without  giving  reasons  therefor, 


13 


without  even  visiting  the  classes  in  recitation,  and  without 
any  endeavor  to  correct  the  alleged  deficiencies  by  kindly 
counsel  or  co-operation,  may  be  tolerated  for  a while  in  the 
political  field;  may  be  necessary  in  military  discipline,  per- 
haps, also,  in  criminal  law,  but  in  the  educational  realm  is 
simply  intolerable  and  destructive  and  must  necessarily  be 
followed,  unless  repented  of,  by  permanent  injury  to  the 
city’s  highest  educational  institution  and  to  the  city  itself 
that  can  tolerate  such  methods  without  rebuke.  I write  as 
one  who  feels  that  he  himself  has  been  personally  stabbed  in 
the  injury  that  has  been  done  to  a law,  both  human  and  di- 
vine, and  because  there  seems  no  other  or  better  way  of 
protest.  (Rev.)  John  Goddard. 

Avondale,  January  26,  1900. 


[Editorial  from  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Jan.  31,  1900.] 

The  Real  Issue  in  the  University* 


There  is  a story  of  a man  of  dull  sensibilities  who  was 
fond  of  beating  his  wife.  The  neighbors  interfered.  The 
dull  man  looked  at  them  with  a puzzled  expression  and 
then  said : “But  how  do  you  get  into  this  ? It’s  my  own 
wife.”  Exactly  that  has  been  the  attitude  of  President 
Ayers  toward  the  public  over  the  trouble  in  the  University. 
When  he  cashiered  professors  without  giving  reasons,  and 
the  public  indignantly  demanded  his  reasons,  he  said,  speak- 
ing figuratively : ‘‘What  have  you  to  do  with  this  ? It  isn’t 
your  wife  I am  beating.” 

There  are  involved  here  two  great  moral  principles.  The 
first  is  that  no  man  is  ever  the  final  judge  of  his  own  actions. 
The  second  is  that  the  nature  of  an  action  is  frequently  of  no 
greater  moment  than  is  the  manner  in  which  it  is  done. 

That  a man  is  never  the  final  judge  of  his  own  actions 
is  the  moral  of  the  story  of  the  man  who  beat  his  wife.  Such 
a man  imagines  that  he  need  reckon  only  with  the  letter 
of  the  law.  If  the  woman  will  not  appear  against  him., 


14 


why,  what  is  to  hinder  him?  When  the  illogical  neighbors 
rush  in  he  feels  deeply  wronged.  “She  wouldn’t  do  what  I 
told  her,”  he  protests.  “She  would  have  meals  at  hours  I 
didn’t  like.  She  isn’t  your  wife.  Let  me  alone !”  He  can 
not  see  that  no  man,  ever,  can  reckon  wholly  without 
Public  Opinion.  The  letter  of  the  law  is  the  measure  not 
of  what  one  may  do,  but  of  what,  at  all  hazards,  one  shall  not 
do.  In  every  sort  of  community  there  is  an  unwritten  law 
which  is  the  measure  of  what  one,  with  impunity,  may  do. 
In  a democracy  this  unwritten  law  is  extensive  and  armed 
with  much  power.  When  one  happens  to  be  a public  officer 
in  a democracy  one  must  reckon  at  every  step  with  this  un- 
written law — with  the  law  that  gives  the  neighbors  plenary 
power  to  break  a man’s  head  if  he  beats  his  wife.  N'ow, 
President  Ayers,  a public  officer,  in  a democratic  community 
— the  holder  of  a public  trust  and  a user  of  public  moneys — 
has  seen  fit  to  ignore,  even  to  defy,  Public  Opinion.  He  has 
said,  in  substance,  that  he  will  do  what  he  pleases 
with  his  office,  and  no  one  shall  interfere  with  him. 
He  will  dismiss  the  University  professors  and  give  no 
reasons,  and  if  the  Public  does  not  like  it,  the  Public 
can  lump  it.  He  has  thrown  down  the  glove  to  Public 
Opinion.  On  Monday  afternoon  the  glove  was  taken  up. 
A meeting  of  citizens  who  were  bent  on  getting  reasons  was 
held  at  the  St.  Nicholas,  and  the  following  were  present: 
Alexander  McDonald,  Bishop  Boyd  Vincent,  Dr.  C.  R. 
Holmes,  Wm.  Worthington,  Dr.  Curtis,  James  A.  Green, 
Herbert  Jenney,  Dr.  Stewart,  Dr.  Thrasher,  Charles  Edgar 
Brown,  John  Uri  Lloyd,  Judge  Bode,  Leopold  Kleybolte, 
General  Hickenlooper,  General  Seasongood,  Rev.  Charles 
Frederic  Goss,  Hon.  John  F.  Follett,  Dr.  Philipson,  Francis 
Ferry,  W.  N.  Hobart,  Judge  Swung,  H.  A.  Ratterman,  O.  J. 
Wilson,  Judge  Wright,  E.  W.  Coy,  G.  Bouscaren,  and 
Thomas  Morrison.  If  President  Ayers  still  believes  in  the 
principle  that  a man  may  beat  his  own  wife  and  that  nobody 
has  a right  to  interfere,  he  may  discover,  before  long,  that  he 
is  living  in  a democracy,  and  not  in  the  feudal  ages. 


15 


But  this  is  not  all.  The  real  issue  in  the  University  is 
twofold.  Not  only  is  there  involved,  as  has  been  stated,  the 
right  of  the  President  to  be  a Czar,  but  also  the  question, 
“What  is  the  prime  function  of  a University?”  This  ques- 
tion comes  into  play  because  of  the  line  of  defense  of  those 
persons  who  are  partizan  to  President  Ayers.  They  will  say, 
or,  many  of  them  will  say,  that  the  one  thing  now  in  order 
to  discuss  is  whether  the  maltreated  professors  were  com- 
petent instructors.  Here  is  the  reasoning  of  these  gentle- 
men : “The  prime  function  of  a University  is  to  give  good 
instruction ; we  assert  that  the  professors  removed  either 
were  not  good  instructors,  or  for  some  other  reason  were  not 
beneficial  to  the  University,  else  the  President  would  not  have 
removed  them ; all  questions,  in  such  connection,  of  the  way 
in  which  the  removal  was  accomplished,  such  as  whether  it 
was  kind  or  cruel,  gentlemanly  or  vulgar,  are  mere  senti- 
mental riib'bish ; therefore,  we  decline  to  discuss  any  question 
except  whether  or  not  the  professors  were  competent.” 

At  first  blush  this  specious  reasoning  may  appear  sound. 
In  reality,  it  is  false.  Matthew  Arnold  once  said  that  the 
trouble  with  American  universities  was  that  their  prime  effort 
was  to  produce  good  lawyers,  doctors,  engineers,  etc.,  not,  as 
it  should  be,  to  produce  good  MEN.  He  was  too  sweeping 
in  his  generalization,  but  what  led  him  into  his  error  must 
have  been  the  reasoning  of  just  such  people  as  the  partizans 
of  President  Ayers.  “What  is  a man  profited  if  he  gain  the 
whole  world  and  lose  his  awn  soul  ?”  What  is  a University 
profited  if  it  make  its  students  able,  crafty,  skilful,  and  yet 
does  not  make  them  high-strung,  honorable  men  or  women? 
And  how  can  a University  hope  to  make  fearless  gentlemen 
of  its  boys,  and  confirm  in  fearless  womanhood  its  girls,  if  its 
own  official  acts  do  not  breathe  of  the  ideal?  A University 
can  pull  through  and  be  a great  force  for  good  in  spite  of  a 
poor  equipment,  in  spite  of  inferior  mentality  in  its  teachers, 
in  spite  of  a thousand  purely  intellectual  failings.  But  it  can 
never,  not  even  if  it  have  all  the  equipment  in  the  world  and 
all  the  genius  upon  earth,  be  a truly  great  and  good  force 


16 


unless  its  intellectual  influence  be  transcended  by  its  moral 
one.  The  President  of  a University  may  fail  in  mentality, 
and  yet,  by  reason  of  a noble  and  inspiring  character,  do  good 
to  his  institution.  But  if  he  fail  in  character,  if  he  be  harsh, 
supercilious  or  brutal,  his  mental  qualifications  count  for 
nothing.  In  a word,  the  prime  function  of  a University  is 
the  upbuilding  of  character.  All  other  considerations,  no 
matter  how  momentous,  are  secondary.  Therefore,  the  one 
great  question,  as  to  the  conduct  of  President  Ayers,  is  not 
whether  the  University  was  in  need  of  a change,  but  whether 
the  President,  in  his  attack  upon  the  faculty,  has  so  conducted 
himself  that  his  example  will  be  to  every  student  in  his 
charge  a stimulus  to  all  that  is  noble,  refined,  and  heroic  in 
the  student’s  nature.  The  real  issue  as  to  the  conduct  of 
President  Ayers  is  whether  or  no 

He  kept  without  abuse 

The  grand  old  name  of  gentleman, 

Profaned  by  every  charlatan 
And  soiled  by  all  ignoble  use. 


[Editorial  from  the  Cincinnati  Volksblatt.] 

(Sin  9ttitglieb  be§  Uniberfitdt^lftatp,  9?amen&  Suftn,  ftat 
fteft  betrep  be§  <protefte§  ber  SSiirger  gegen  bie  SSotgange  an  ber 
Itniberfitat  baftin  geauftert,  baft  bie  SSiirger^erfammtung,  tnenn 
fie  bem  Uni&erfitdt§^atft  iftre  SSefcftfliffe  unterbreite,  feine  33ead^ 
tung  finben  tnerbe,  ineil  e§  lauter  bertiidte  barren  feien.  SDie 
banner,  toeldje  al§  S3erriidte  unb  barren  begeidjnet  tourben, 
finb  folcfte  $perfbnlicftfeiten  toie:  5Heyanber  HttcSDanalb,  SSifftop 
SSoftb  Vincent,  Dr.  (S.  9ft.  §olme§,  22m.  SOBortftington,  Dr.  ©ur= 
ti§,  !Jame§  ©teen,  Herbert  Sennety,  Dr.  ©temart,  Dr. 
Sftraffter,  ©fta§.  ©bgar  SSrcftm,  ^oftn  Uri  £lot)b,  9fticf)ter  S3obe, 
fieopolb  SHepboIte,  ©eneral  £icfenk>oper,  ©eneral  Seafongoob, 
Rev.  (SftarleS  ^reberid  ©oft,  21<f)tb.  ^oftn  §f.  gfoHett,  Dr.  $f)itip* 
fon,  granci§  fjerri),  2B.  9ft.  §obart,  9fticftter  ©toing,  §.  51.  9ftaT 


17 


termann,  0.  3.  SSilfon,  Dxidjter  SSrigbt,  @.  3®.  Sot),  ©.  33ou§* 
carett  unb  $ljoma3  2florrifon.  SDiefe  tfteufeerung,  fo  emporenb 
fie  audj  ift,  befitjt  bocp  iljren  grofeen  SDSertf)*  ©ie  lafjt  erfennen, 
too  bie  SOSurgel  ber  UniberfitatS'SOBirren  gu  fud^ett  ift.  $n  ^er 
Uniberfitdt3*33et)brbe  befinben  ficfj  offenbar  eine  9In3af)I  banner, 
bie  jeber  geiftigen  SSefcUjigung  entbefjren  unb  fdfjleunigft  befeitigt 
tberben  miiffen,  menn  bie  Uniberfitat  nicf)t  3U  ©runbe  ge^en  foil. 
39Benn  man  fiefjt,  bafi  ein  9ftenfd)  tbie  biefet  £u^n  iiber  ^rofefforen 
3U  ©ericf)t  fitjt,  fo  tann  man  berftefyen,  tbie  ber  ©ebante  auffom* 
men  tonnte,  eine  gange  gatultat  Slnafl  unb  gall  gu  entlaffen. 
Sfjatfadfjlicf)  ift  e§  mit  bem  Uniberfitat^9tatf)  bebeutertb  fcf)ted)ter 
befteUt,  aI3  tbir,  bie  tbir  ilber^aupt  teine  fjoije  9fJkinung  bon  bent* 
felben  fatten,  e§  un§  fatten  traumen  laffen.  ©3  ift  bafjer  bie 
^rife  getbiffer  SEflafeen  a!3  ein  ©liicf  3 u betradjten,  ba  fie  ben 
SBiirgern  bie  3tugen  iiber  ben  marten  guftanb  ter  2)inge  gebffnet 
Ijat.  giermit  ift  aber  audfy  bie  ^flid^t  ber  SSiirger  flar  borge3eidf)* 
net.  9Cu3  ben  2teufeerungen  biefeS  £ut)n  ift  erfidfytlicf),  bafe  ba3 
Urt^eil  ber  Uniberfitdt^SSeprbe  nictjt  mafegebenb  feirt  fann.  ©3 
befinben  ficfy  barunter  tbofjl  einige  tiictjtige  £Mfte,  tbie  3.  33.  Dr. 
learnt),  aber  fie  merben  offenbar  bon  9Jtenfc(jen  tbie  Sufjn  iiber' 
ftimmt.  SDamit  ift  gefagt,  bafe  bie  SSiirger  ber  ©tabt  fidj  mit 
ben  ©riinben,  tbelcfje  ^3rof.  5tpre3  fiir  bie  Utaffenentlaffung  ange* 
fiifjrt  fyat,  nicfjt  3ufrieben  geben  tonnen,  fonbern  baf*  fie  barauf 
beftefjen  miiffen,  ifynen  genau  fpe3ifi3irte  ©riinbe  an3ugeben,  iiber 
beren  3ftid^tigteit  audfy  bie  ^3rofefforen  gefjbrt  tberben  miiffen,  benn 
unmogttdp  tbirb  man  3ugeftetjen  tbnnen,  bafe  Utenfd^en  bom  gei* 
ftigen  Caliber  eine3  Sufjn  ein  Urt^eil  befitjen,  bem  man  SSertrauen 
fdfyenten  tann.  ©0  bergeblicf)  audp  ba3  SBemiifien  erfdfyeinen  mag, 
bie  geiftige  ginfternifj,  tbeldfye  biefen  £uf)n  umnadptet,  auf3u^el^ 
Ien,  mbdpten  tbir  if)n  bocp  iiber  ben  einen  ^3unft  aufftaren,  baf; 
bie  Uniberfitat  nidpt  ba3  ^ribat^Sigent^um  be3  §errn  SuKjn 
ift,  iiber  tbeld(je3  er  nacp  33elieben  flatten  unb  tbalten  fann,  fon* 
bern  3um  allergrbfUen  S^eile  bu§  bffentlicpen  UHtteln  erljalten 
tbirb  unb  bemnadp  ba3  33oH  ein  iRecf)t  t)at,  3iuftlarung  iiber  eine 
§anbtung3tbeife  ber  Sruftee3  3U  berlangen,  bie  foId)en  Wan- 
nern,  tbie  fie  oben  genannt  finb,  unbegreiflicp  erfdfjeint.  SOBenn 


18 


biefer  £uf)n  bie  2lufflcirung  bermeigert,  fo  bleibt  ni(f)t§  5fnbete3 
iibrtg,  al3  tfjtt  unb  fetneS  ©leidjen  au§  bcm  Unxberfttat§*9ftatlj 
3U  entfernen. 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Feb.  17,  1900.] 

University  Investigation* 


citizens’  committee  has  sifted  matters  to  the  bottom 

AND  IS  READY  TO  REPORT. 


The  subcommittee  of  the  citizens’  organization,  which  has 
taken  up  the  matter  of  investigating  the  method  and  reasons 
of  the  recent  discharges  of  professors  by  President  Ayers, 
of  the  Cincinnati  University,  held  another  conference  yester- 
day afternoon  in  General  Hickenlooper’s  office.  Besides 
Chairman  Hickenlooper,  the  following  members  were  pres- 
ent : William  N.  Hobart,  Dr.  Stewart,  Dr.  Philipson,  Rev.  C. 
F.  Goss,  and  James  A.  Green.  The  committee  arranged  for 
a final  report,  which  will  be  submitted  at  the  regular  meeting 
of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  University  on  Monday  next. 
The  members  of  the  committee  have  gone  into  the  subject 
very  thoroughly.  They  have  taken  up  each  individual  dis- 
charge and  investigated  the  record  of  each  professor  from 
the  beginning.  They  have  had  free  access  to  all  the  testi- 
mony that  could  be  gathered  at  the  University  in  this  direc- 
tion. They  emphasize  that  they  have  made  an  impartial  in- 
vestigation, and  wish  to  simply  present  the  facts.  They  have 
also  been  solicitous  to  get  at  the  raison  d’etre  of  the  entire 
proceeding — the  engagement  of  Prof.  Ayers  as  President  of 
the  University  for  a specific  purpose,  leading  to  the  dis- 
charges of  the  members  of  the  faculty  which  were  subse- 
quently made.  The  committee  claims  to  have  a formidable 
array  of  facts,  which  will  be  submitted  in  writing,  and  which, 
it  says,  will  make  the  next  session  of  the  University  Board 
an  exceedingly  interesting  one. 


19 


A Formidable  Report  Made  by  the  Citizens'  Committee. 


VINDICATION  OF  THE  FACULTY ARRAIGNMENT  OF  AYERS. 

He  is  Charged  With  Disregard  of  Courtesy  and  a Lack  of 
Executive  Ability. 

[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Feb,  18,  1900.] 

The  Citizens’  Committee  which  has  been  investigating  the 
recent  discharges  of  members  of  the  faculty  made  by  Presi- 
dent Ayers,  of  the  Cincinnati  University,  held  a meeting 
yesterday  afternoon  at  2 o’clock  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel. 
General  A.  Hickenlooper  presided,  and  Mr.  Jas.  A.  Green 
was  called  upon  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary.  Besides 
these  the  following  were  present : Dr.  B.  Merrill  Ricketts, 
Dr.  Jos.  V.  Ricketts,  Francis  Ferry,  G.  Bouscaren,  F.  H. 
Rattermann,  Dr.  A.  B.  Thrasher,  Judge  A.  H.  Bode,  Prin- 
cipal E.  W.  Coy,  John'  Uri  Lloyd,  Rev.  Dr.  H.  M.  Curtis, 
Prescott  Smith,  Dr.  Chas.  F.  Goss,  Wm.  N.  Hobart,  Dr. 
Robt.  W.  Stewart,  Dr.  David  Philipson. 

Mr.  Green  read  the  following  report  of  the  subcommittee, 
which  had  gone  into  the  details  of  the  investigation : 

subcommittee's  report. 

Cincinnati,  February  17,  1900. 

To  the  Citizens’  Committee  convened  for  the  Purpose  of  Con- 
sidering the  Educational  Interests  of  This  City : 
Gentlemen — Your  Special  Committee,  consisting  of  Rev. 
David  Philipson,  Wm.  N.  Hobart,  Dr.  R.  W.  Stewart,  Rev. 
Chas.  F.  Goss,  and  Jas.  A.  Green,  Secretary,  with  A.  Hicken- 
looper as  Chairman,  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring 
information  which  would  enable  it  to  report  back  the  exact 
status  of  questions  involved  in  the  pending  controversy,  has 
the  honor  to  report : 

First — That  although  your  committee  has  made  every 
effort  in  its  power  to  secure  a meeting  with  the  Board  of 


20 


Directors  of  the  University  it  absolutely  failed,  as  shown 
by  the  correspondence: 


“Cincinnati,  February  i,  1900. 

“ Oscar  W.  Kuhn , Esq.,  Chairman  Board  of  Trustees,  University  of 
Cincinnati,  519  Lincoln  Inn  Court,  city: 

(‘Dear  Sir — By  and  upon  the  authority  of  a Special  Committee 
of  the  Citizens’  Committee  called  upon  to  consider  questions  in- 
volved in  the  controversy  now  going  on  in  regard  to  the  educational 
interests  of  our  city,  consisting  of  the  following  named  gentlemen : 
Rev.  David  Philipson,  Wm.  N.  Hobart,  Dr.  R.-W.  Stewart,  Jas.  A. 
Green,  Rev.  Chas.  F Goss,  and  undersigned,  ex-officio  and  Chair- 
man, I have  on  their  behalf  to  solicit  the  pleasure  and  honor  of  a 
conference  with  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  University  of  Cincin- 
nati at  the  earliest  practical  date,  with  a view  to  obtaining  exact  and 
reliable  information  bearing  upon  the  subject  under  consideration. 
If  you  will  kindly  indicate  the  time  and  place  when  it  will  be  con- 
venient for  the  Board  of  Trustees  to  accord  this  committee  the 
courtesy  of  an  interview,  we  will  be  greatly  obliged.  Very  respect- 
fully, “A.  Hickenlooper,  Chairman.” 

“Cincinnati,  February  3,  1900. 

“General  A.  Hickenlooper,  city: 

“Dear  Sir — Your  very  esteemed  favor  of  the  1st  inst.,  asking  for 
a conference  with  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  University  of  Cin- 
cinnati, is  at  hand.  As  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Board  does  not 
occur  until  the  19th  inst.,  I have  deemed  it  advisable  to  ask  a few  of 
the  Board  members  to  meet  your  committee,  and  they  have  indicated 
their  desire  to  do  so. 

“If  convenient  for  you  and  your  committee,  we  shall  be  pleased 
to  meet  you  on  Wednesday  afternoon  of  next  week,  at  3 o’clock, 
at  the  office  of  Major  Frank  J.  Jones,  in  the  Fosdick  Building,  at 
41  East  Fourth  street. 

“Kindly  let  me  know  if  the  time  and  place  will  be  agreeable  to 
you  and  your  committee  to  meet  us.  I have  the  honor  to  be  yours 
truly,  Oscar  W.  Kuhn.” 

“Cincinnati,  February  3,  1900. 

“Hon.  Oscar  W.  Kuhn,  Board  of  Directors,  University  of  Cincin- 
nati, 519  Main  street,  city: 

“Dear  Sir — I am  this  moment — 4:15  p.  m. — in  receipt  of  your 
reply  to  my  letter  of  the  1st  inst.,  in  which  you  say: 

“ T have  deemed  it  advisable  to  ask  a few  of  the  Board  members 
to  meet  your  committee,  and  they  have  indicated  their  desire  to  do 
so.  If  convenient  for  you  and  your  committee,  we  shall  be  pleased 


21 


to  meet  you  on  Wednesday  afternoon  of  next  week  at  3 o’clock,  at 
the  office  of  Major  Frank  J.  Jones,  in  the  Fosdick  Building,  at  41 
East  Fourth  street/ 

'While  I have  not  had  time  to  call  the  committee  or  consult  the 
views  of  the  members,  I fear  such  an  arrangement  will  not  be  in 
harmony  with  their  wishes,  as  expressed  in  our  communication  so- 
liciting the  interview.  I feel  assured  that  their  desire  is  as  ex- 
pressed : 

“ ‘1  have,  on  their  behalf,  to  solicit  the  pleasure  and  honor  of  a 
conference  with  the  Board  of  Trustees  (Directors)  of  the  University 
of  Cincinnati  at  the  earliest  practical  date,,  with  a view  to  obtaining 
exact  and  reliable  information  bearing  upon  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration.’ 

“I  feel,  and  am  justified  in  saying  that  the  committee  feels,  that 
it  would  prefer  meeting  the  entire  Board,  and  at  the  usual  official 
place  of  meeting,  where  ready  reference  may  be  had  to  official  records 
which  it  may  be  necessary  to  consult  in  order  to  obtain  exact  and  re- 
liable information  with  the  least  possible  delay. 

“Trusting  you  may  be  able  to  see  the  wisdom  and  advantage  of 
this  suggested  modification,  I await  your  reply  before  again  calling 
the  committee  together.  Yours  truly, 

“A.  Hickenlooper,  Chairman.” 

“Cincinnati,  February  6,  1900. 

“General  A.  Hickenlooper,  city: 

“Dear  Sir — Your  very  esteemed  favor  of  the  3d  in3t.  is  before 
me.  I shall  take  great  pleasure  in  laying  before  the  Board  of  Di- 
rectors at  its  next  regular  meeting,  on  the  19th  inst.,  your  communi- 
cations to  me.  I have  the  honor  to  be  yours  very  truly, 

“Oscar  W.  Kuhn,  Chairman.” 

“Cincinnati,  February  6,  1900. 

“Hon.  Oscar  W.  Kuhn,  Chairman  Board  of  Directors,  University 
of  Cincinnati,  519  Main  street,  city: 

“Sir — I have  the  honor,  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  favor 
of  the  6th  inst.,  in  which  you  state  that  you  will  take  pleasure  in  lay- 
ing before  the  Board  of  Directors  at  its  next  regular  meeting  on  the 
19th  inst.  my  communication  to  you. 

“In  view  of  the  great  desire  of  the  committee  to  per- 
form their  assigned  duties  and  make  their  report  thereon  to 
the  Citizens’  Committee,  at  the  earliest  practical  date,  can  not  you 
consistently  call  a special  meeting  of  the  Board  at  an  earlier  date? 

“I  am  confident  that  our  committee  will  greatly  appreciate  the 
courtesy  of  such  action  upon  your  part.  Very  respectfully, 

“A.  Hickenlooper,  Chairman.” 


— 22 


“Cincinnati,  February  io,  1900. 

“Hon.  Oscar  W Kuhn,  Chairman  Board  of  Directors,  University  of 
Cincinnati,  519  Main  street,  city: 

“Dear  Sir— Not  having  received  a reply  to  my  letter  of  the  6th 
inst.,  in  which  1 made  inquiry  whether  you  could  not  consistently 
call  a special  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  University  of 
Cincinnati,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  Citizens’  Committee  at  an 
earlier  date  than  the  19th  inst.,  I called  a meeting  of  the  Special 
Committee,  the  members  of  which  have  been  heretofore  named,  and 
by  their  unanimous  request  I repeat  their  solicitation  for  an  afforded 
opportunity  of  meeting  your  Board  of  Directors  at  the  earliest  prac- 
tical date. 

“If  this  request  can,  consistently,  be  complied  with,  will  you 
kindly  so  advise  me,  in  order  that  I may  communicate  definite  in- 
formation to  the  members  of  the  committee?  Very  respectfully, 

“A.  Hickenlooper,  Chairman.’’ 

“Cincinnati,  February  12,  1900. 

“General  A.  Hickenlooper,  city: 

“Dear  Sir — I shall  try  to  have  a meeting  of  our  Board  of  Direc- 
tors early  this  week,  and  will  lay  before  them  the  wishes  of  your  sub- 
committee respecting  a conference  with  our  Board,  and  I shall  be 
glad  to  report  to  you  the  action  which  they  may  take. 

“I  have  the  honor  to  be  yours  truly, 

“Oscar  W.  Kuhn.” 

“Cincinnati,  February  14,  1900. 

“General  A.  Hickenlooper,  city: 

“Dear  Sir — At  the  meeting  of  our  Board  of  Directors  held 
yesterday  afternoon  your  various  communications  were  submitted. 

“After  a consideration  of  the  matters  involved,  the  Board  of 
Directors  authorized  the  Chairman  to  appoint  a committee  of  five 
members,  of  which  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  should  be  Chairman, 
to  confer  with  your  committee  with  regard  to  the  subject  inquired 
about. 

“That  committee  consists  of  Dr.  C.  A.  L.  Reed,  Mr.  J.  G. 
Schmidlapp,  Dr.  J.  B.  Peaslee,  and  Mr.  Max  B.  May. 

“As  Chairman  of  that  committee  I am  authorized  to  invite  your 
committee  to  a conference  on  Friday  afternoon  next  at  the  office  of 
Dr.  C.  A.  L.  Reed,  in  the  Groton  Building,  at  3 o’clock. 

“Our  committtee  will  be  there,  and  glad  to  give  your  committee 
all  the  information  that  you  may  ask. 

“I  have  the  honor  to  be,  yours  respectfully, 

“Oscar  W.  Kuhn,  Chairman.” 


23 


“Cincinnati,  February  15,  1900. 

“Oscar  W.  Kuhn,  Chairman  Board  of  Directors,  University  of  Cin- 
cinnati, city: 

“Sir — In  response  to  your  favor  of  the  14th  inst.,  would  state 
that  I have  been  instructed  to  say  that  while  we  would  have  greatly 
preferred  meeting  with  the  entire  Board  of  Directors  for  reasons 
heretofore  given,  to  avoid  further  delay  we  will  take  pleasure  in 
meeting  your  committee  at  the  time  and  place  stated — Dr.  Reed’s 
office,  Groton  Building,  Seventh  and  Race  streets — to-morrow,  Fri- 
day, at  3 p.  m.  Very  respectfully, 

“A.  Hickenlooper,  Chairman.” 

A JOINT  CONFERENCE. 

At  this  meeting  there  were  present  as  representatives  of 
the  Board  of  Trustees  Messrs.  Kuhn,  May,  Peaslee,  Schmid- 
lapp,  and  Pendleton;  and  of  your  committee  Messfs.  Philip- 
son,  Goss,  Greene,  Hobart,  Stewart,  and  Hickenlooper. 

To  the  Board’s  committee  the  following  inquiry  was  pro- 
pounded : 

“What  reasons  shall  we  give  the  Citizens’  Committee  for 
the  action  of  the  President  and  Board  of  Directors  in  dis- 
missing the  faculty  of  the  University  ?” 

But  little  light  was  thrown  on  the  matter  at  issue  by  this 
conference,  for  the  members  of  the  Board  positively  refused 
to  make  any  statement  except  upon  a pledge  of  secrecy  which 
your  committee  could  not  grant.  The  only  reason  they  as- 
signed was  a general,  but  indefinite,  charge  of  incompetency. 

In  this  direction  and  effort  we  have  failed,  a failure  that 
appears  the  more  surprising,  as  By-Law  V specifically  pro- 
vides that  “special  meetings  may  be  called  by  the  Chairman 
of  the  Board,  or  by  any  two  members.” 

It  was,  therefore,  clearly  within  the  power  and  the 
province  of  the  Chairman  or  any  two  members  to  call  such 
meeting  at  any  time.  It  is  equally  clear,  from  the  corre- 
spondence submitted,  that  the  desire  of  the  Chairman  and  his 
advisers  was  to  delay  and  defeat  such  meeting,  although  the 
purpose  of  such  solicited  meeting,  as  expressed  in  the  first 
communication  transmitted,  was  for  the  sole  and  only  pur- 
pose of  “obtaining  exact  and  reliable  information  bearing  up- 
on the  subject  under  consideration.” 


24 


Your  committee,  therefore,  feels  that  it  has  been  unjustly 
denied  a courtesy  and  privilege  to  which,  under  the  circum- 
stances, it  was  justly  entitled. 

Second — Having  thus  failed  in  securing  information  in 
this  direction,  we  next  turned  to  the  statutes  and  ordinance 
under  and  by  virtue  of  which  the  Board  of  Directors  is 
acting. 

We  find  (Sec.  4098)  that  the  membership  of  said  Bo^rd 
shall  consist  of  nineteen  members,  of  which  the  Mayor  of  the 
city  shall  be  one,  six  appointed  by  the  Common  Council  upon 
nominations  of  the  Board  of  Education,  and  twelve  by 
Council  upon  nominations  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Term  of 
office  six  years,  with  power  to  select  a Chairman. 

Sec.  4099.  Said  board  “may  appoint  the  President,  pro- 
fessors, tutors,  instructors,  agents  and  servants  necessary,  and 
proper  for  such  University  and  determine  their  compensa- 
tion.” 

It  may  further  provide  by-laws  “concerning  the  Presi- 
dent, professors,  tutors,  etc.,  as  it  deems  wise  and  proper, 
and  may,  by  such  by-laws,  delegate  the  institution’s  manage- 
ment to  the  faculty,  which  the  directors  may  appoint  from 
the  professors.” 

Subsequently — February  18,  1892 — by  special  legislative 
act  the  power  to  appoint  the  directors  was  conferred  upon  the 
Judge  or  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Third — We  next  turned  to  the  by-laws  of  the  Board  of 
Directors — written  law  by  which  its  proceedings  must  be 
governed — and  call  your  attention  to  their  provisions : 

“HI.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Chairman  to  see  that  all 
by-laws  and  regulations  of  the  board  are  observed,  and  the 
duties  of  the  officers  and  agents  of  the  board  are  faithfully 
executed,  and  to  report  any  default  to  the  board.” 

ABSENCE  OF  ANY  REPORT. 

The  absence  of  any  report  of  any  character  or  kind,  over 
the  long  period  of  twenty  or  more  years,  reflecting  in  any 
manner  upon  the  Character,  competency  or  faithful  perform  - 


25 


ance  of  any  member  of  the  academic  faculty,  must  be 
accepted  either  as  evidence  of  thoroughly  acceptable  service, 
or  of  gross  neglect  of  assigned  duties  upon  the  part  of  the 
Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors. 

By-law  V.  provides  that : 

“Regular  meetings  of  the  board  shall  be  held  on  the  third 
Monday  of  every  month,  except  June,  July  and  August,  at 
the  office  of  the  board,  and  at  such  hours  as  the  board  may 
from  time  to  time  prescribe.” 

From  which  it  will  be  seen  that  the  propriety  of  holding 
meetings  of  the  board  at  the  office  of  the  board  is  fully  rec- 
ognized, and  should  be  rigorously  observed,  more  especially 
as  this  is  a public  body.  Your  committee,  therefore,  feels 
justified  in  condemning  the  practise  of  holding  meetings  of 
the  board,  whether  regular  or  special,  at  any  other  than  the 
office  of  the  said  board,  to  which  citizens  should  have  access, 
except  in  very  special  and  exceptional  cases,  justified  by  the 
nature  of  'the  business  to  be  transacted. 

We  next  refer  to  By-law  IX.,  which  refers  to  the  duties 
and  privileges  of  the  President  of  the  University,  and  find : 

“He  shall  be  responsible  for  the  carrying  out  of  all  meas- 
ures officially  agreed  upon  by  the  faculty,  and  of  such  orders 
concerning  ‘the  internal  administration  of  'the  University  as 
the  Board  of  Directors  may  issue. 

“He  shall  be  the  official  medium  of  communication  be- 
tween the  faculty  and  the  Board  of  Directors ; shall  be 
present  at  all  meetings  of  said  board,  unless  otherwise 
directed,  with  the  privilege  of  speaking  upon  any  question 
which  directly  concerns  the  faculty ; provided,  however,  that 
all  communications  to  the  board  from  the  faculty,  or  any 
members  thereof,  shall  have  been  first  approved  at  a meeting 
of  the  faculty  and  submitted  to  the  Committee  on  Academic 
Department,  except  in  cases  where  a member  wishes  to 
appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  faculty  to  the  board.” 


26 


INVESTIGATION  OF  BY-LAWS. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  June  12,  1899, 
additions  were  made  to  this  by-law  in  the  following  par- 
ticulars bearing  upon  the  subject  under  consideration: 

“2.  The  President  shall  have  the  power  of  nominating 
the  dean  of  the  academic  faculty,  subject  to  the  approval  of 
the  Board  of  Directors. 

“4.  The  President  shall  have  the  exclusive  right  to 
transmit  all  communications  from  each  faculty  and  from 
each  member  thereof  to  the  board. 

“5.  The  President  shall  have  the  right  to  recommend  to 
the  board  the  vacation  of  professorships  and  other  positions 
in  the  academic  departments. 

“6.  The  President  shall  have  the  exclusive  right  to  nom- 
inate professors  in  all  departments  except  in  so  far  as  this 
may  be  inconsistent  with  the  contracts  under  which  certain 
of  the  departments  are  now  conducted.” 

It  will  be  observed  that,  while  this  addition  to  By-law  No. 
IX.  does  not  repeal  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  one  to  which 
it  is  an  addition,  it  is  in  conflict  therewith  in  this,  that  in  the 
first  instance  the  by-law  provides  that,  while  the  President  is 
designated  as  the  official  medium  of  communication  between 
the  faculty  and  the  board,  or  the  Committee  on  Academic 
Department,  it  does  not,  as  in  the  addition,  confer  upon  such 
President  the  exclusive  right  to  transmit  all  communications 
from  each  faculty  and  from  each  member  thereof,  which 
carries  with  it  the  interpretation,  or  implication,  that  he  also 
has  the  right  to  refuse  to  transmit  any  such  communication 
either  from  such  faculty  or  any  member  thereof ; or,  in 
other  words,  to  prohibit  or  prevent  the  exercise  of  such 
reasonable  right  of  communication  or  petition,  an  assump- 
tion of  autocratic  control  that,  in  the  opinion  of  your  com- 
mittee, not  only  diveststhe  board  of  its  own  legal  and  proper 
control,  but  may  become  prejudicial  to  the  proper  control 
and  the  best  interests  of  the  University. 

In  this  relation  it  may  not  be  improper  to  say  that,  while 


27 


the  dean  of  the  law  faculty  appears  to  be  in  favor  of  enlarg- 
ing the  powers  of  the  President  in  so  far  as  the  academic  de- 
partment is  concerned,  in  regard  to  his  own  department,  he 
says : 

“It  seems  to  the  faculty  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  give  to 
the  President  power  to  recommend  vacations  of  or  elections 
to  the  law  faculty.” 

By-law  XII. — Tenure  of  Office — provides  : 

“Any  professorship,  or  other  office  in  any  department 
of  the  University,  may  be  vacated  at  the  end  of  the  academic 
year  by  a vote  of  a majority  of  all  the  directors,  or  by  the 
same  vote  at  any  time  on  proof  of  incompetency  or  unbecom- 
ing conduct ; the  person  concerned,  however,  shall  in  all  cases 
be  notified  before  final  action  is  taken.” 

Which  latter  clause  means,  if  it  means  anything,  that  the 
person  concerned  shall  be  entitled  to  a hearing  in  his  own 
behalf  before  final  action  is  taken. 

board's  minutes  examined. 

Your  committee  next  examined  the  minutes  of  the  board’s 
meetings,  in  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  matter  under  con- 
sideration, from  Which  it  appears  that  the  first  action  looking 
to  the  appointment  of  a President  was  June  22,  1898,  at 
which  meeting  the  following  resolution  was  unanimously 
adopted : 

“Resolved,  That  a committee  of  three,  of  which  the  Chair- 
man of  this  board  shall  be  one,  in  connection  with  the  deans 
of  the  various  faculties  of  the  University,  be  appointed  by 
the  Chairman  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  secure,  at  the 
earliest  practicable  moment,  a President  of  the  University, 
and,  after  securing  for  him  the  indorsement  of  a majority  of 
the  joint  faculties,  to  report  such  selection  to  this  board  for 
final  action.” 

Under  this  resolution  Messrs.  Kuhn,  Jones  and  Reed 
were  appointed,  together  with  the  deans  of  the  Academic, 
Law  and  Medical  Departments. 


28 


February  20,  1899.  Mr.  Reed  reported  that  while  they 
had  been  diligent  in  the  performance  of  the  duty  assigned, 
they  were  as  yet  unable  to  report  a selection,  and  asked  that 
they  be  empowered  to  send  a subcommittee,  of  not  less  than 
two  members,  to  visit  several  universities  and  cities  for  the 
purpose  of  more  carefully  investigating  the  qualifications  of 
candidates  for  the  Presidency. 

March  20,  1899.  Dean  Taft,  for  Special  Committee  on 
Presidency,  reported  that  they  were  not  yet  ready  to  report. 

May  15,  1899.  Mr.  Reed  submitted  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Presidency,  and  submitted  the  name  of  Prof. 
Howard  Ayers,  with  a highly  complimentary  written  report, 
signed  by  Wm.  H.  Taft,  Oscar  W.  Kuhn,  Frank  J.  Jones.  E. 
W.  Hyde  and  Charles  A.  L.  Reed. 

JOINT  FACULTIES  NOT  CONSULTED. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  report  and  recommendation 
is  faulty  in  this,  that  the  resolution  by  authority  of  which  the 
committee  was  acting  requires  that  any  selection  made  by 
such  committee  should  be  approved  by  a majority  of  the 
joint  faculties  before  being  reported  to  the  board  for  final 
action.  Upon  the  contrary,  it  is  signed  only  by  three  mem- 
bers of  the  select  committee,  and  only  by  the  deans  of  the  law 
and  academic  faculties,  the  latter  of  whom  signed  under 
protest,  and  only  when  assured  by  the  Chairman  of  the  board 
that  no  professor  could  or  would  be  removed  except  by  the 
board,  and  then  only  upon  charges  and  a full  hearing.  It 
bears  no  evidence  whatever  of  having  been  submitted  to  the 
“joint  faculties”  for  their  consideration,  and  it  never  was  so 
submitted  or  approved. 

This  report  also  recommended  the  “adoption”  of  the  fol- 
lowing statutes  defining  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Pres- 
ident, which  are  as  heretofore  referred  to,  and  appear  to  have 
been  regarded  as  an  addition  to  By-law  IX.,  which  report 
was  adopted  by  the  following  vote:  Yeas,  Messrs.  Butler, 
Cunningham,  Jones,  Luhn,  May,  McAlpin,  Peaslee,  Pendle- 


29 


ton,  Reamv,  Reed,  Robinson,  Windisch  and  Chairman 
Kuhn — 13. 

And  at  this  meeting  “Mr.  Reed  gave  notice  that  at  the 
next  regular  meeting  of  the  board  lie  would  move  the  adop- 
tion of  the  following  statutes  as  amendments  to  the  by-laws,” 
being  the  same  as  previously  referred  to  as  having  been 
adopted  June  12,  1899,  by  a unanimous  vote. 

At  this  same  meeting  the  Academic  Committee  “recom- 
mended to  the  board  the  appointment  of  all  instructors  now 
employed  in  the  academic  department  for  one  year  at  the 
present  salaries,  subject  to  any  increase  that  the  board  may 
hereafter  make  on  the  recommendation  of  the  President. 
Also,  the  temporary  appointment  of  the  present  assistant 
librarian  and  registry  clerk  at  the  same  salaries  as  they 
received  last  year,”  signed  by  John  B.  Peaslee,  Frank  J. 
Jones,  Oscar  W.  Kuhn  and  Max  B.  May,  committee,  which 
report  was  adopted  by  vote  of  twelve  present. 

September  18,  1899,  President  Ayers  reported : “In  ac- 
cordance with  the  action  of  the  Academic  Committee  last 
June,  authorizing  me  to  appoint  certain  instructors  that  have 
been  recommended  by  the  academic  faculty,  I have  ap- 
pointed”— 

Here  follows  a list  of  instructors  and  teachers,  thirteen 
in  number,  and  is  followed  by : 

“I  recommend  that  Mr.  Arthur  Knoch,  former  instructor 
in  physical  culture  and  director  of  the  gymnasium,  and  Miss 
Mabel  Halliday,  formerly  instructor  in  physical  culture  for 
the  ladies,  both  be  continued  under  the  agreement  of  last 
session,  and  that  Mr.  W.  C.  Benton  be  appointed  registrar 
at  a salary  of  $720,”  which  recommendation  was  approved  by 
unanimous  vote  of  the  board. 

ASSUMPTION  OF  AUTHORITY. 

By  what  authority  the  President  asserted  that  the  Aca- 
demic Committee  had  authorized  him  to  appoint  certain 
instructors  that  had  been  recommended  by  the  academic 
faculty,  and  assume  the  authority  of  announcing  such  ap- 


30 


pointments,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  in  the  face  of  the 
report  of  such  committee  to  the  Board  of  Directors  on  the 
12th  day  of  June,  three  months  before: 

“At  a meeting  of  the  Academic  Committee  held  May  22, 
at  3 o’clock  p.  m.,  in  the  office  of  Major  Frank  J.  Jones,  it 
was  resolved  to  recommend  to  your  honorable  board  the 
appointment  of  all  instructors  now  employed  in  the  Academic 
Department  for  one  year  at  the  present  salaries,  etc.,”  which 
report  was  adopted  by  a unanimous  vote. 

January  19,  1900,  the  board  met  in  special  session  upon 
call  of  Chairman  Kuhn,  at  3 130  p.  m.  Present,  Messrs. 
Arnold,  Bliss,  Butler,  Jones,  Luhn,  May,  Peaslee,  Pendleton, 
Reamy,  Reed,  Robinson,  Senior,  Windisch  and  Chairman 
Kuhn — 14.  Absent,  Messrs.  Cunningham,  Procter,  Schmid- 
lapp  and  Mayor  Tafel. 

“The  Chairman  stated  that  he  had  called  this  meeting 
to  give  President  Ayers  an  opportunity  to  make  his  report 
on  University  affairs,”  which  report,  in  substance,  recom- 
mends that  the  professorships  of  French  and  German  be 
abolished,  and  one  of  romance  languages  and  one  of  Ger- 
manic language  be  created.  That  the.  professorship  of 
history  and  political  economy  be  also  abolished,  and  that  two 
professorships,  one  of  economics  and  civics  and  another  of 
history,  be  created. 

He  also  recommended  that  the  following  professorships 
be  declared  vacant  at  the  end  of  the  present  college  year : 
civil  engineering,  Latin  language  and  literature,  Greek  and 
.comparative  philology,  mathematics,  biology  and  physics — 
six  in  all — which,  together  with  the  ones  to  be  vacated  by 
Changes,  of  course,  made  a total  of  ten  vacancies  to  be  filled, 
but  by  whom  is  not  stated. 

It  being  pertinent  to  this  inquiry,  we  submit  the  following 
extract  from  this  “report :” 

“On  January  11  and  12  I explained  to  those  concerned 
that  their  resignations,  to  take  effect  July  1,  1900,  would  be 
accepted  if  tendered,  and  in  case  no  resignations  were  tend- 


31 


ered  it  would  devolve  upon  me  to  recommend  to  the  Board 
of  Directors  the  vacations  of  these  professorships. 

“Resignations  were  tendered  by  the  professors  of  civil 
engineering,  chemistry  and  physics,  subsequently  the  pro- 
fessors of  civil  engineering  and  physics  withdrew  their  resig- 
nations, and  the  professor  of  chemistry  alone  requested  that 
his  resignation  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  board.  It  is 
submitted  herewith.” 

Mr.  Reed  moved  that  "‘the  resignation  of  Prof.  Norton 
be  accepted,  and  that  the  report  of  the  President  be  adopted. 

A protracted  discussion  followed. 

Mr.  Jones  moved  that  action  be  postponed  until  next 
Tuesday,  on  which  the  vote  was:  Yeas — Messrs.  Arnold, 
Bliss,  Jones,  Senior  and  Windisch — 5.  Nays — Messrs.  But- 
ler, Luhn,  May,  Peaslee,  Pendleton,  Reamy,  Reed,  Robinson 
and  Chairman  Kuhn — 9. 

The  question  next  being  on  Mr.  Reed’s  motion  to  adopt 
the  report  of  the  President,  the  vote  was : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Arnold,  Butler,  Jones,  Luhn,  May, 
Peaslee,  Pendleton,  Reed,  Robinson,  Windisch  and  Chair- 
man Kuhn — 11. 

Nay — Mr.  Reamy. 

Excused  from  voting — Messrs.  Bliss  and  Senior. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Reed  was  declared  carried  and  the 
board  adjourned. 

This  ends  the  official  record  of  proceedings  bearing  upon 
this  subject. 

We  deem  it  proper  to  call  attention  to  some  peculiar 
features  of  these  proceedings : 

First — Nowhere,  either  in  the  laws,  ordinances,  statutes 
or  by-laws  has  the  power  of  removal  or  appointment  been 
conferred  upon  the  President. 

Even  in  the  statutes,  which  were  submitted  by  the  com- 
mittee, and  which  it  is  supposed  were  prepared  at  the  instance 
of  the  President  with  a view  to  enlarging  and  more  clearly 
defining  his  power  and  authority,  and  which  statutes  were 
subsequently  adopted  as  an  addition  to  existing  by-laws,  his 


32 


authority  is  strictly  limited  to  the  nomination  of  deans,  and 
recommendation  to  the  Board  of  Directors  of  vacation  of 
professorships,  coupled  with  the  right  to  nominate  to  the 
Board  of  Directors  the  persons  to  take  the  chairs  which  the 
board  has  declared  vacant. 

When,  wherein  or  by  whom  authority  was  given  the 
President  to  demand  the  immediate  and  unconditional  resig- 
nation of  the  academic  faculty  nowhere  appears  of  record. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  in  evidence  that  at,  and  after,  a private 
dinner  given  by  the  President,  at  his  residence,  on  the  even- 
ing of  October  14,  1899,  to  which  possibly  all,  and  certainly 
a majority,  of  the  Directors  of  the  University  had  been  in- 
vited, he  then  demanded  under  conditions  of  absolute  secrecy 
that  they  defer  to,  and  sustain  him,  in  any  measures  he 
might  choose  to  adopt  in  regard  to  a reorganization  of  the 
faculty,  to  which  all  present  pledged  themselves;  but  it  was 
afterwards  asserted  by  individual  members  of  the  board  that 
they  did  mot  understand  that  such  a demand  and  pledge  fore- 
shadowed the  wholesale  decapitation  of  the  faculty. 

PLANNED  BY  AYERS. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  President  Ayers  planned  this  whole- 
sale dismissal  of  the  faculty  about  the  middle  of  October, 
or  within  a month  after  the  time  of  the  opening  of  the 
University.  He  had  had  less  than  twenty  actual  school 
days’  experience  with  his  faculty,  a period  notoriously  too 
short  for  any  real  knowledge  of  the  situation.  There  can 
be  no  question  but  that  he  passed  his  harsh  judgment  on  the 
professors  wholly  in  advance,  without  the  slightest  regard  to 
the  individual  merits  of  the  various  men  concerned,  of  which 
he  was  necessarily  entirely  ignorant. 

Even  the  board  itself,  under  the  provisions  of  By-law  No. 
t 2,  has  committed  itself  to  the  proposition  that  any  profes- 
sorships could  be  vacated  only  at  the  end  of  the  academic 
year  by  a vote  of  a majority  of  all  the  directors,  or  at  any 
other  time  only  on  proof  of  incompetency  or  unbecoming 
conduct ; and  in  all  cases  that  final  action  would  not  be  taken 


33 


until  after  “the  persons  concerned”  have  been  notified  before 
action  is  taken. 

While  the  board  has  the  undoubted  right  to  make  changes 
in  accordance  with  such  by-law’s  provisions,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  a twenty  years’  custom  has  in  effect  become  an 
unwritten  law  under  which  the  “persons  concerned”  have 
continuously  occupied  their  places,  without  going  through  a 
form  of  an  annual  election. 

That,  in  this  instance,  a charge  of  incompetency  or  un- 
becoming conduct  is  untenable  is  evidenced  not  only  by  the 
fact  that  the  “persons  concerned”  have  satisfactorily  filled  the 
various  positions  they  now  occupy  for  periods  of  time  rang- 
ing from  six  to  twenty-five  years ; that  during  the  whole 
of  such  period  not  a single  official  complaint  has  been  made, 
or  charge  filed,  involving  either  the  integrity,  morality  or 
competency  of  any  of  the  “ persons  concerned and  that, 
mainly  through  such  acceptable  and  satisfactory  performance 
of  assigned  duties,  the  University  has  been  brought  to  so 
high  a standard  that  its  students  are  now  admitted  to  the 
very  best  Eastern  colleges,  such  as  Harvard,  Yale,  Cornell 
and  Princeton,  upon  certificates  and  without  examinations. 

In  this  connection  it  appears  eminently  proper  that  we 
refer  to  extracts  from  the  official  report  of  Dr.  C.  G. 
Comegys,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors  (under  date 
of  January  i,  1895),  a man  who  gave  the  greater  portion 
of  a long  life  to  the  advancement  of  the  educational  interests 
of  our  city,  and  whose  name  is  the  synonym  of  all  that  is 
good  and  great : 

“It  is  very  satisfactory  to  the  board  to  note  with  what 
diligence  and  success  members  of  the  faculty  have  succeeded 
in  gaining  the  favor  of  many  of  our  generous  business  men 
toward  the  growth  of  our  school,  thus  forming  a vast  educa- 
tional combination  with  immense  capacity  to  promote  public 
intelligence,  order  and  virtue. 

“When  it  is  considered  how  little  we  possessed  twenty 
years  ago,  when  we  organized  the  academic  department,  it 
is  a matter  of  congratulation  to  behold  how  broadly  and 


34 


thoroughly  we  have  become  able  to  offer  higher  learning  to 
the  youths  of  both  sexes  in  this  city. 


ABILITY  OF  THE  FACULTY. 

“Certainly  the  faculty  has  done  good  work,  for  our 
students  are  now  able  to  enter  the  colleges  of  the  East  on 
the  same  plane  as  they  hold  here.  We  have  thus  managed 
to  rise  to  an  elevation  of  great  respectability  among  Ameri- 
can colleges,  and  have  gained  the  confidence  of  our  public- 
spirited  citizens  who  believe  that  our  foundation  is  stable 
and  that  our  faculty  is  a body  of  learned  scholars  and  suc- 
cessful teachers.” 

And  in  the  next  report — December,  1895 — Major  Frank 
J.  Jones,  the  then  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  says : 

“The  present  condition  of  the  University  is  excellent, 
and  surrounded  by  superior  environments  the  scholastic 
training  is  being  conducted  with  the  very  best  results.” 

And  in  the  next  report — the  twenty-sixth — of  the  same 
gentleman  we  find 

“The  general  condition  of  the  University  is  satisfactory, 
and  we  have  abundant  evidence  of  a marked  improvement 
during  the  past  year  in  the  various  departments.  The  annual 
reports  of  the  deans  of  the  academic,  the  medical  and  the  law 
departments,  and  also  of  the  professors  and  instructors  in  the 
various  -departments  of  the  University,  are  hereto  attached. 
I recommend  their  careful  and  thoughtful  perusal,  as  em- 
bodying complete,  interesting  and  valuable  information  of 
the  active  and  successful  labors  which  are  being  performed 
by  these  capable  men  in  building  up  this  noble  institution  of 
higher  learning.” 

Again,  in  his  next,  and  last,  report — twenty-seventh — 
he  says,  in  presenting  the  sub-reports : 

“They  are  especially  commended  to  your  careful  and 
thoughtful  consideration,  as  containing  valuable  information 
of  the  active  and  aggressive  work  being  done  in  the  several 
departments  of  our  University.” 


35 


And  we  now  come  to  the  report  of  the  present  Chairman 
of  the  board — the  twenty-eighth — in  which  he  says  but  little 
of  the  personnel  of  the  faculty,  but  that  little  is  commen- 
datory : 

“This  marvelous  growth  has  required  the  division  of 
classes,  and  has  imposed  upon  the  faculty  greatly  increased 
duties,  which  have  been  partially  shared  by  a large  corps  of 
able  instructors,  who  have  given  eminent  satisfaction. " 

And  yet  it  is  these  men,  who  have  accomplished  all  this 
by  hard,  persistent  and  unrequited  toil,  during  terms  of 
service  ranging  from  six  to  twenty-five  years,  who-are  to  be 
turned  away  in  disgrace  from  the  doors  of  the  institution 
that  they  have  been  mainly  instrumental  in  creating,  without 
any  assigned  reason  or  assignable  cause. 

SCATHING  ARRAIGNMENT  OF  AYERS. 

And  this  by  a man  whose  scholarly  attainments  we  may 
not  question,  but  whose  manners  and  methods  indicate  a 
total  disregard  of  all  the  ordinary  attributes  of  executive 
ability,  propriety  and  common  courtesy.  For  it  has  been 
clearly  established  by  incontrovertible  testimony  that  these 
reputable  citizens,  learned  men,  competent  professors,  court- 
eous gentlemen  and  lifelong  promoters  of  the  educational 
interests  of  our  city  were,  without  previous  notice,  roughly 
summoned  by  the  janitor  of  the  building  to  at  once  repair 
to  the  President’s  private  office,  where,  in  the  presence  of  a 
stenographer  to  record  what  was  said,  and  in  the  ajbsence  of 
other  witnesses  to  the  interview,  an  imperious  demand  was 
made  that  they  at  once  attach  their  signatures  to  already 
prepared  resignations. 

And  when  the  “persons  concerned"  requested  information 
as  to  the  reasons  for  such  an  unexpected  and  unusual  de- 
mand, the  reply  was  only  “I  have  no  reasons  to  give.  It  is 
my  pleasure.”  And  when  the  surprised  and  mortified 
victims  pleaded  for  a little  time  in  which  to  consider  the 
matter,  they  were  promptly  informed  that  unless  the  pre- 


36 


pared  resignations  were  signed,  sealed  and  delivered  before 
5 p.  m.  on  the  following  day,  they  would  be  disgraced  by  a 
summary  and  unconditional  dismissal,  which  he  stated  he 
had  been  empowered  to  enforce. 

And,  finally,  when  such  threats  failed  to  terrify  into 
subservient  submission  and  abject  surrender,  his  threats  were 
turned  to  pleadings  and  promises  that  if  they  would  sign  and 
preserve  absolute  secrecy  in  regard  to  the  whole  matter  he 
would  give  them  the  aid  of  his  commendation  and  powerful 
influence  in  obtaining  appointments  elsewhere- — an  offer 
whose  ethical  nature  will  scarcely  bear  investigation,  consid- 
ering the  innuendoes  of  “incompetency”  for  the  positions  they 
now  fill,  which  have  been  circulated,  for,  if  the  President  is 
acting  honestly,  how  could  he  honestly  recommend  the 
deposed  professors  for  positions  elsewhere. 

This  by  a man  who  has  never  had  a meeting  of  his 
faculty  for  the  purpose  of  considering  or  discussing  condi- 
tions, outlining  his  policy,  or  in  any  shape  or  form  indicating 
a desire  for  changes  of  any  character  or  kind;  a man  who 
has  never  visited  any  of  the  classrooms,  heard  a single  reci- 
tation or  taken  any  means  whatever  toward  making  himself 
acquainted  with  the  workings  of  the  University,  and  by  this 
action  necessitating  the  filling  of  the  places  of  the  true  and 
tried  by  men  of  whose  ability  we  know  nothing. 

In  conclusion,  your  committee  begs  leave  to  report  that 
having  given  this  matter  as  full  and  fair  a consideration  as 
was  possible,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  directors  refuse  to 
give  us  explanations  in  detail,  we  can  not  doubt  that  the 
President  has  acted  with  undue  haste,  and  with  scant 
courtesy  to  his  faculty,  in  demanding  their  resignations,  and 
that  he  has  not  even  carried  with  him  the  calm  and  dispas- 
sionate judgment  of  all  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Direct- 
ors, many  of  whom  seem  to  have  been  no  less  astonished 
than  others  at  his  summary  proceedings. 

We,  therefore,  recommend  that  this  committee  send  rep- 
resentatives to  the  next  meeting  of  the  board  to  respectfully 
make  an  earnest  appeal  for  the  reconsideration  of  the  votes 


37 


by  which  the  President’s  recommendation  was  approved, 
and  that,  pending  further  action,  the  members  of  the 
to-be-deposed  faculty  may  be  afforded  a full,  frank  and  open 
hearing,  which  we  believe  is  the  only  course  that  will  save 
the  University  and  the  educational  interests  of  our  city  from 
irreparable  injury.  Ci-ias.  F.  Goss, 

William  N.  Hobart, 
Robert  W.  Stewart, 
Jas.  A.  Green, 

David  Philipson 
A.  Hickenlooper, 

Chairman. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Rattermann  the  report  was  adopted, 
with  the  exception  that  the  words,  “common  decency,”  re- 
flecting upon  Mr.  Ayers,  were  changed  to  ‘‘common  court- 
esy.” 

Dr.  Thrasher  and  Judge  Bode  both  requested  that  the 
portion  of  the  report  personal  to  President  Ayers  be  omitted 
on  the  ground  that  the  latter  did  not  have  a chance  of  defend- 
ing himself. 

Hereupon  Dr.  Gtfss  explained  that  he  had  an  interview 
with  President  Ayers  and  that  there  was  nothing  embodied 
in  the  report  of  the  committee  which  did  not  fully  agree  with 
his  own  declarations  and  with  the  facts  in  the  case. 

The  committee  which  drafted  the  report  was  requested 
to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
University  at  Monday’s  meeting. 

* * * 

SITUATION  REVIEWED. 


MEMBER  OF  THE  CITIZEN  s’  COMMITTEE  EXPRESSES  HIS  VIEWS. 


A member  of  the  committee,  discussing  the  situation,  had 
the  following  to  say : 

“We  have  endeavored,  in  all  this,  to  give  the  facts  as  far 
as  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain  them.  Justice  to  both 


38 


sides  demanded  this.  But  there  is  another  and  more  im  - 
portant light  in  which  we  should  look  at  this  chronicle  of 
events.  A university  owes  more  to  those  young  men  and 
women  who  are  assembled  within  its  walls  than  mental  train- 
ing, which  enables  them  to  grasp  the  truths  which  science  has 
revealed.  They  are  destined-  to  take  their  places  in  the 
country,  probably  in  our  city,  as  men  and  women  whose  edu- 
cation should  fit  them  to  become  leaders.  It  is  of  supreme 
importance  that  they  should  enter  into  manhood  and  woman- 
hood with  the  highest  motives  and  the  noblest  aims,  that  they 
should  recognize  and  adopt  the  firmest  standard  of 
right,  should  have  the  strongest  love  of  honor  and 
broadest  sense  of  justice  toward  their  fellow  men. 
If  they  iare  to  be  lawyers,  doctors  or  engaged  in 
commercial  pursuits;  if  they  are  to  devote  their  lives 
to  scientific  work;  if  they  are  to  be  mothers,  whose  high- 
est duty  is  to  make  noble  men  of  their  sons,  we  can  not  be 
too  careful  that  the  first  instruction  in  what  is  needed  for  a 
high  standard  of  manhood  and  womanhood  shall  lead  them 
in  this  direction.  If  our  University  is  to  be  loved  and  ven- 
erated by  its  alumni,  it  should  be  because  its  escutcheon  is 
without  the  stain  of  an  act  of  injustice  or  a want  of  recog- 
nition of  the  highest  relations  of  man  to  man.  If  the 
students  are  to  look  up  to  the  trustees  as  men  whom  the  law 
provides  shall  be  ‘persons  of  approved  learning,  discretion 
and  fitness  for  office,’  let  these  trustees  also  be  careful  to  be 
known  as  men  who  will  defend,  the  rights  of  their  fellow 
men  with  all  the  power  that  the  office  gives  them.  Let  there 
be  no  opportunity  for  the  charge  to  be  made  that 
those  who  have  served  the  University  from  ten  to 
twenty-five  of  the  best  years  of  their  lives,  against 
whose  character  there  has  not  been  a breath  of 
criticism,  whose  ability  in  their  profession  has  been  unques- 
tioned, whose  earnest  endeavors  to  build  up  the  University 
have  been  apparent  to  all,  have  been  displaced  and  thrown 
on  the  world  without  the  opportunity  of  defense,  without 
a serious  charge  made  against  them,  either  publicly  or  in 


39 


private,  and  almost  without  apology,  for  by  such  a course,  a 
serious  injury  may  be  done  them  in  their  profession.  They 
may  find  it  hard,  after  their  years  of  work,  to  seek  fresh 
fields  of  labor ; they  may  feel  most  keenly  that  they  are,  in  a 
measure,  disgraced,  and  that  a professional  slight  has  been 
cast  upon  them,  but  they  can  bear  all  this  with  far  less  injury 
than  will  be  attached  to  the  name  of  the  University,  with  far 
less  loss  of  personal  reputation  than  the  institution  we  hope 
to  take  a just  pride  in  will  suffer,  and  with  greatly  less 
financial  loss,  proportionately,  than  will  result  from  the  hesi- 
tation that  will  be  created  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are 
disposed  to  give  or  devise  money  to  it;  but  all  this  injury 
can  not  equal  that  to  the  young  people  who  are  having  their 
character  molded  and  developed  if  the  University  is  effecting 
what  it  should.  If  true  charity  and  the  honest  recognition 
of  others’  rights  and  privileges  are  not  to  be  first,  if  will  is 
to  take  the  place  of  calm  deliberation  and  if  the  hand  of 
power  is  to  be  above  that  of  reason,  it  will  tend  to  blind  the 
sense  of  justice  in  these  young  people,  and  a duty  to  these 
young  men  and  women  of  the  future  will  be  neglected.  If 
those  upon  whom  the  responsibility  rests  have  made  a mis- 
take, let  them  reconsider  their  action  and  take  such  measures 
as  will  appeal  to  the  public  sense  of  fairness.  The  new 
President  has  evidently  made  no  effort  to  ascertain  whether 
the  men  who  have  been  devoting  their  energies  to  their  pro- 
fessional labor  are  adapted  to  the  work  in  which  they  are 
engaged.  A careful  study  of  their  ability  and  work  might 
lead  him  to  believe  that  he  could  make  better  use  of  the 
material  at  his  hand  than  to  engage  those  to  whom  the  work 
here  would  be  new. 

“But,  at  least  all  action  should  be  postponed  until  he  can 
arrive  at  a more  deliberate  decision,  and,  if  there  are  charges 
to  make,  every  opportunity  should  be  given  for  a fair  hearing 
and  proper  defense.” 


40 


Forcible  Presentation  of  the  Claims  of  University  Professors 
Before  the  Board  of  Trustees* 


MEMBERS  OF  CITIZENS'  COMMITTEE  MAKE  ELOQUENT  PLEAS 
FOR  JUSTICE. 


Special  Committee  to  Report  the  Reasons  for  Previous  Ac- 
tion of  the  Board. 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Feb.  20,  1900.] 

When  Chairman  Kuhn,  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
University  of  Cincinnati,  took  his  seat  yesterday  and  rapped 
for  order,  standing  room,  if  not  at  a premium,  was  at  least 
at  par,  with  a steadily  rising  market  until  the  close  of  the 
proceedings. 

That  a fight  was  afoot  and  that  the  citizens  were  deter- 
mined on  having  a full  and  patient  hearing  was  manifest 
when  the  delegation  filed  into  the  room,  headed  by  General 
Hickenlooper  and  comprising  in  its  number  the  following 
gentlemen:  Rev.  Charles  Frederic  Goss,  Rev.  Dr.  Curtis, 
Judge  J.  S.  Conner,  Charles  S.  Stephens,  Rabbi  Philipson, 
W.  N.  Hobart  and  Dr.  Stewart,  with  a delegation  of  students 
bringing  up  the  rear.  While  President  Kuhn  was  prompt 
to  recognize  the  presence  of  the  delegation  and  to  suggest 
that  it  be  heard  before  proceeding  with  the  regular  business, 
it  was  evident  that  the  addresses  would  be  made  to  a body  of 
gentlemen  the  large  majority  of  whom  were  fixed  in  their 
conviction  and  that  the  visit,  so  far  as  the  present  is  con- 
cerned, would  be  of  no  avail.  That  manifestation  became 
even  more  marked  as  the  day  wore  on  to  dusk,  and  it  was  by 
a scratch,  merely,  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Pendleton,  that  the 
board  decline  to  accede  to  the  request  of  the  delegation  in 
pleading  for  the  academic  faculty,  failed  of  passage.  In  the 
outcome  the  delegation  was  given  a very  short  shrift,  for.  the 
determination  of  the  board  was  to  hold  a secret  meeting 
of  its  committee,  to  report  to  a special  meeting  of  the  board 


41 


tomorrow,  at  3 p.  m.,  Mr.  Pendleton  remarking  that  he  didn’t 
think  it  would  take  the  committee  very  long  to  formulate 
its  report. 

HOW  THE  PROCEEDINGS  OPENED. 

In  response  to  the  suggestion  of  Chairman  Kuhn,  General 
Hickenlooper  took  the  floor  and  said : 

“As  Chairman  of  the  subcommittee  of  the  Citizens’  Com- 
mittee, I am  here  to  fill  an  obligation  imposed  on  me  by  the 
committee.  The  substance  and  the  essence  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Citizens’  Committee  have  been  given  in  the  daily 
press  of  the  city.  Our  request  is  for  a reconsideration  of  the 
vote  by  which  your  board  deposed  the  academic  faculty  of 
the  University,  and  that,  pending  the  result  of  that  vote, 
you  will  give  the  members  of  the  faculty  a full,  a fair,  an 
impartial  and  a deserved  hearing.  That  is  the  message  I 
have  for  the  board  from  the  Citizens’  Committee.” 

TPIE  ANIMUS  SHOWS  ITSELF. 

Dr.  Reed  asked  whether  there  were  any  communications 
on  the  subject,  and  received  no  answer.  The  subsequent 
proceedings  of  the  board,  however,  showed,  in  possession  of 
the  board,  petitions  from  the  faculty  for  a rehearing. 

Dr.  Reed  continued  by  saying  that  the  matter  was  one  of 
serious  import,  and  presented  by  a forceful  delegation.  As 
for  himself,  he  was  assured  of  the  rightfulness  of  the  mode 
of  procedure  adopted  by  the  board  in  sustaining  President 
Ayers,  and  that,  while  not  officially  before  the  board,  yet  all 
members  understood  what  the  subject  and  the  request  were. 
He,  therefore,  moved  that  the  entire  matter  be  referred  to 
the  special  committee  which  had  the  subject  in  charge  to 
report  within  ten  days. 

Dr.  Reamy  said  he  hoped  the  motion  would  not  prevail. 

“Without  the  slightest  reflection  on  the  gentlemen  on  that 
committee,  I call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  minority  of 
this  board  is  not  represented  on  it,”  said  Dr.  Reamy.  “That 
committee  has  once  reported  unanimously  in  favor  of  su- 
staining President  Ayers.  Every  man  on  it  is  identified  with 


42 


the  report  heretofore  made.  Is  it  the  intention  of  the  Chair 
to  allow  the  minority  to  be  represented?  The  minority  is 
made  up  of  members  of  the  board  equally  with  the  majority, 
and  the  question  is  what  can  this  committee,  absolutely  in 
sympathy  with,  and  committed  to  sustaining,  President 
Ayers,  do  otherwise  than  to  report  again  in  his  favor.  Is 
that  just? 


HEARD  BUT  DID  NOT  HEED. 

“That  committee  has  already  had  the  opportunity  to  hear 
these  representative  citizens,  but  the  citizens  were  refused, 
and  have  not  succeeded  in  obtaining  a hearing.  What  do 
they  ask  now?”  said  Dr.  Reamy.  “Simply  that  you  reopen 
the  case  that  the  faculty  may  be  given  that  hearing  which 
can  not  be  lawfully  denied  to  the  humblest  citizen.  The  com- 
mittee does  not  ask  that  you  reinstate  the  faculty.  On  the 
contrary,  I am  sure  if  a fair  and  impartial  hearing  resulted 
in  a justification  of  the  course  of  the  board  and  President 
Ayers,  the  Citizens’  Committee  would  sustain  you  heartily. 
They  do  not  ask  that  incompetent  men  or  immoral  men  be 
retained,  but  simply  that  justice  may  be  done  to  gentlemen 
who  have  served  this  board  for  years,  and  who  have  been 
sent  forth  to  the  world  with  a stigma  upon  them,  unheard  by 
your  board  and  unheard  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion.  Let 
me  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  Citizens’  Committee  repre- 
sents large  educational  and  other  civic  interests,  and  their 
demands  for  justice  can  not  be  lightly  overlooked.  Yet,  in 
the  face  of  the  facts,  in  the  face  of  justice,  you  propose  to 
send  back  this  matter  to  a committee  already  committed 
unanimously  against  the  request  of  the  citizens,”  said  Dr. 
Reamy. 

“I  agree  with  Dr.  Reamy,”  said  Mr.  Pendleton.  “I 
recognize  the  worth  and  the  sincerity  of  the  gentlemen  who 
are  here  today  representing  the  Citizens’  Committee.  It  is 
due  to  them,  and  it  is  due  to  the  University  of  Cincinnati, 
that  the  matter  be  closed.  I therefore  move  that  their  re- 
quest be  declined.” 


43 


Mr.  Butler  coincided  with  Mr.  Pendleton.  He  insisted 
that  the  board  had  acted  conscientiously  and  with  sufficient 
and  good  reasons,  and  the  request  should  be  declined. 

A CITIZEN  TAKES  THE  FLOOR. 

But  the  citizens  had  in  their  ranks  men  who  know  their 
rights  and  how  to  propose  them.  Mr.  Charles  S.  H. 
Stephens  took  the  floor. 

“Gentlemen/’  said  Mr.  Stephens,  “I  regret  to  say  that 
I am  inclined  to  believe  I am  addressing  a board  whose  judg- 
ment has  been  made  up,  and  the  mind  of  which  has  been  ab- 
solutely formed.  I hope  I am  mistaken,  but  it  so  looks  to  me. 
However,  I will  not  refrain  from  asking  on  behalf  of  the 
academic  faculty  that  you  gentlemen  take  courage  to  do 
right.  If  any  one  of  you  were  in  the  position  of  any  member 
of  that  faculty,  you  would,  demand,  as  a right,  that  you  be 
heard,  and  would  feel  the  sting  of  gross  injustice  if  that 
hearing  should  be  denied  to  you.  I concede  to  you  all  sin- 
cerity, but  I can  not  . concede  that  you  can  form  a correct 
judgment  on  the  mere  statements  of  one  side  to  a contro- 
versy. And  if  you  act  from  conviction,  that  conviction  need 
not  be  disturbed.  If,  on  a hearing  of  the  charges,  an  open 
hearing  and  a fair  hearing,  the  testimony  warrants  you  in 
arriving  at  the  conclusion  reached  by  you  some  days  ago, 
there  will  not  be,  as  Dr.  Reamy  said,  any  objection  on  the 
part  of  the  citizens.  In  granting  the  hearing  asked,  you  will 
be  doing  but  a simple,  plain  act  of  justice  to  your  fellow  men ; 
to  men  who  have  served  the  University  for  years,  and  on 
whose  names  there  is  no  blemish.  In  the  name  of  justice  I 
appeal  to  you  and  to  each  of  you  that  you  give  these  gentle- 
men a hearing.  When  you  secured  a President  the  citizens 
rejoiced;  but  prior  to  that  time  there  had  been  donations  of 
land,  and  donations  of  money,  and  the  University  seemed  to 
be  entering  on  a course  of  secured  prosperity.  Now  this 
unhappy  trouble  is  precipitated  on  the  University,  and  you 
gentlemen  add  to  it  by  the  fact  that  you  deny  justice  to  men, 
of  all  men,  who  deserve  it  at  your  hands.  Let  these  gentle- 


44 


men  meet  their  accuser  face  to  face.  Is  he  afraid  to  meet 
the  men  he  has  condemned?  Has  he  the  necessary  testi- 
mony? If  so,  why  do  you  hesitate?  Let  the  President 
come  into  the  open,  and  if  you  find  him  fortified  on  the  hear- 
ing, then  uphold  his  hands,  but  do  not  strike  down  justice.” 

FROM  AN  ALUMNUS. 

Rabbi  Philipson  next  addressed  the  board,  stating  that 
he  was  an  alumnus  of  the  University  and  interested  in  every- 
thing tending  to  her  welfare. 

“In  the  expression  attributed  to  Mr.  Vanderbilt  he  was 
radically  wrong,”  said  Rabbi  Philipson,  when  Dr.  Read 
asked  him  to  put  the  quotation  in  words. 

“It  is  unnecessary,”  said  Dr.  Philipson,  “I  see  you  gentle- 
men remember  it.  I sometimes  am  inclined  to  think  he 
never  used  it,  for  he  was  a man  who  knew  too  well  the  power 
of  the  people  and  their  influence  on  public  institutions.  I 
come  to  you  today  to  plead  for  justice  and  for  the  University 
of  Cincinnati,”  said  he.  “Your  recent  action  will  not  sub- 
serve the  interests  of  the  institution.  It  will  injure  it  irre- 
parably. If  justice  be  denied  in  church,  in  school,  in  courts, 
in  public  boards,  then  the  foundations  of  our  institutions  are 
crumbling.  I have  never  yet  known,  and  have  never  read, 
of  any  case  where  an  entire  class  was  condemned  without  the 
slightest  regard  to  the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  component 
parts  of  the  class.  We  only  ask  justice;  we  plead  for  no 
favors ; we  recognize  the  duties  and  the  responsibilities  rest- 
ing on  you,  and  we  do  not  come  here  to  impugn  either  your 
sincerity  or  your  motives.  We  demand  justice  in  the  name 
of  American  institutions,  and  we  can  have  no  patience  with 
medieval  methods  of  procedure.  They  are  out  of  place  and  out 
of  time.  I have  here  two  letters  from  Columbia  and  Cor- 
nell Universities  with  reference  to  Dean  Hyde.  In  one  of 
these  letters  the  writer  says  that  if  President  Ayers  regards 
Dean  Hyde  as  incompetent  he,  the  President  himself,  is  in- 
competent as  a judge  of  men  or  of  scholastic  or  scientific 
attainments.  You  gentlemen  are  blasting  the  characters 


45 


and  the  careers  of  honorable  men.  Will  you  pause  and  be 
brave  to  do  right  ?” 

THE  POWERFUL  PLEA  OF  DR.  GOSS. 

General  Hickenlooper  introduced  to  the  board  Rev. 
Charles  Frederic  Goss,  and  it  is  no  disrespect  to  the  other 
earnest  and  impressive  speakers  to  say  that  Dr.  Goss  deliv- 
ered emphatically  the  speech  of  the  occasion. 

“This  is  the  first  time  in  all  my  life  that  I have  appeared 
in  the  character  of  an  obstructionist,”  said  Dr.  Goss.  “1 
would  have  preferred  the  part  of  the  listener,  but  the  occa- 
sion demands  of  no  man  that  he  keep  silent.  In  all  the 
agonies  of  life  it  is 'not  when  foemen  meet  that  the  pang 
comes,  it  is  when  men  are  made  to  choose  between  friend  and 
friend.  I would  not  put  one  straw  in  the  way  of  any  man, 
much  less  of  the  distinguished  educator  who  has  come 
among  us,  as  a stranger,  to  assume  the  high  and  responsible 
duties  of  President  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati.  On  the 
contrary,  my  heart  and  my  hand  go  out  to  the  one  who  comes 
within  our  gates  to  cast  his  lot  with  us.  But  injustice,  gross 
injustice,  has  been  done  to  men,  and  I can  not  refrain  from 
adding  my  plea  for  the  rendition  to  them  of  that  justice 
which  is  our  common  and  our  glorious  heritage  as  Amer- 
icans. 

“Many  things  have  been  charged  against  these  gentle- 
men so  unjustly  dealt  with,  but  not  one  charge  of  all  has 
been  brought  home  to  them ; not  one  has  been  summoned  to 
meet  his  accusers  face  to  face,  and,  as  an  American,  I protest. 

“The  course  which  has  been  pursued  toward  these  gentle- 
men has  not  been  just,  it  has  not  been  honest ; it  has  not  been 
American.  One  gentleman  has  said  that  if  the  board  took 
up  the  hearing  of  the  matter  there  would  be  no  time  for 
attention  to  other  things.  What  other  thing  is  so  vital  as 
justice?  Why  do  you  gentlemen  occupy  these  seats  if  it  is 
not  to  hear  and  determine?  I tell  you  that  you  have  no 
right,  when  character  and  the  future  of  the  members  of  the 
academic  faculty  are  at  stake,  to  refuse  to  hear  them,  and 
to  hear  them  fully. 


46 


STABBED  IN  THE  BACK. 

“No  greater  underlying  question  has  ever  been  presented 
than  is  now  presented  to  you,  gentlemen.  If  you  leave  it 
settled,  as  you  have  settled  it,  there  will  be  constant  clash- 
ing, and  the  University  will  bear  the  burden  of  the  injuries 
inflicted.  Are  you  content  to  teach  the  young  men  and  the 
young  women  of  the  University  that  a strong  hand  may 
sweep  the  decks  of  faithful  men  and  servants,  and  that  men 
may  be  stabbed  in  the  back  and  no  complaint  of  injustice 
be  heard  ? In  the  presence  of  these  youths  I plead  for  justice 
for  these  men,  and  I beg  of  you  do  not  inculcate  by  example 
and  by  action  that  in  strength  alone  is  justice  to  be  found. 
Do  right;  be  calm,  be  patient,  be  sweet-tempered.  Do  jus- 
tice to  the  academic  faculty;  show  them  you  are  strong- 
enough  to  undo  what  you  have  done ; let  them  stand  or  fall 
on  their  merits  individually;  if  there  be  incompetents,  weed 
them  out;  if  there  be  immoral  men  among  them,  cast  them 
out  from  your  midst.  But  in  the  name  of  all  you  hold  dear, 
and  in  the  name  of  common  justice,  in  the  name  of  the  land 
we  love — be  brave  and  just  to  all.  And,  having  done  that 
which  right  and  justice  demand;  having  placed  the  accused 
face  to  face  with  his  accuser,  enter  on  the  hearing  in  a spirit 
of  magnanimity,  of  patience  and  of  determination  to  do  that 
which  duty  requires  of  you,  and  then,  and  not  until  then, 
will  justice  be  satisfied;  and  until  you  do  that  you  will  meet 
the  condemnation  of  right-thinking  and  of  right-minded 
men/’ 

OTHER  REMARKS  MADE. 

Mr.  W.  N.  Hobart  said  that  among  men  of  large  enter- 
prises, and  among  all  large  corporations,  the  rule  was  never 
to  dismiss  an  employe  without  a hearing.  He  appealed  to 
Mr.  Proctor,  especially,  saying  that  his  firm  had  found,  as 
no  other  had,  the  value  of  good  men  and  the  profit  of  keeping 
them  and  of  treating  them  justly.  If  the  method  of  the  pro- 
cedure of  the  board  with  reference  to  the  academic  faculty 
were  to  become  a precedent  there  would  be  constant  friction 
between  labor  and  capital,  and  anarchy  would  be  fostered. 


47 


He  instanced  the  case  of  the  President  of  the  University  of 
California,  who,  though  he  had  occupied  his  position  for  two 
years,  or  more,  had  not  yet  made  one  single  removal,  being 
engaged  in  studying  the  capabilities  of  the  professors  and  in 
acquainting  himself  with  their  personalities.  Yet  he  had 
taken  his  seat  under  very  similar  circumstances  with  those 
of  the  University  of  Cincinnati,  when  President  Ayers  was 
elected  to  the  Presidency. 

“They  say  the  professors  are  incompetent,”  said  Mr. 
Hobart.  “One  of  them  was  called  in  by  the  Saengerfest 
Committee  after  the  disastrous  wreck  of  the  building.  We 
called  him-  in  on  the  recommendation  of  Mr.  Bouscaren,  who 
advised  us  that  if  there  was  to  be  found  in  the  city  a man 
who  could  relieve  us  it  was  Professor  Ward  Baldwin.  He 
carefully  considered  the  situation,  and  finally  accepted  the 
heavy  task.  In  ample  time  for  the  opening  of  the  Saenger- 
fest, for  the  delay  at  the  last  was  not  attributable  to  him,  he 
had  completed  the  most  wonderful  building  in  the  land  so 
far  as  strength  is  concerned,  for  you  might  lay  a train  of 
cars  and  locomotives  on  the  roof  and  there  would  not  be  a 
strain  upon  the  building.  Yet  we  are  told  Ward  Baldwin  is 
incompetent,”  said  Mr.  Hobart,  as  he  resumed  his  seat. 

No  other  gentleman  desiring  to  address  the  board,  Gen- 
eral Hickenlooper  said  it  only  remained  to  thank  the  board 
for  its  courtesy. 

Mr.  Arnold  said  he  could  see  no  harm  in  referring  the 
matter  to  the  special  committee.  “I  yield  to  no  man  in  ad- 
miration for  justice,  and  when  the  committee  makes  its  re- 
port I will  vote  as  I believe  justice  requires,”  said  he. 

“All  that  has  been  said  impresses  me  with  the  belief  that 
deliberation  is  necessary,”  said  Dr.  Reed.  “I  think  the  board 
was  right  in  what  it  did,  and  I still  think  so ; yet,  after  the 
stirring  presentation  made  to  us  to-day  we  must  make  a 
response.  I am  willing  to  give  a response  and  to  make  pub- 
lic the  reasons  which  impelled  the  board  to  act.  The  com- 
mittee can  report  to  the  board  the  reasons  for  its  action, 
so  that  the  public  may  know  them.” 


48 


Mr.  Pendleton  said  if  anything  had  been  brought  out  that 
might  cause  the  board  to  change  its  views  that  would  have 
been  one  thing,  but  that  nothing  had  been  brought  out  by 
any  one  to  suggest  to  him  that  there  had  been  error  in  the 
action  complained  of.  If  a broad  statement  was  to  be  made 
to  the  public,  giving  the  reasons  for  the  action  of  the  board, 
he  would  agree  to  some  delay,  and  he  thereupon  withdrew 
his  motion  that  the  request  of  the  committee  be  declined. 

Dr.  Reed  then  moved  that  a private  meeting  of  the 
special  committee  be  held  at  which  the  report  could  be 
drawn  up,  to  be  presented  to  the  board  at  a meeting  to  be 
held  to-morrow. 

NO  HEARING  IS  INCLUDED. 

“Do  I understand  you  that  a hearing  is  intended  by 
that?”  asked  Mr.  Stephens. 

“By  no  means,”  said  Dr.  Reed,  emphatically.  “It  only 
means  that  the  committee  will  report  to'  the  board  the 
reasons  for  having  taken  the  action  complained  of.  It  will 
be  of  no  use  for  the  faculty  to  appear.  If  the  committee 
reports  unfavorably  I take  it  that  will  end  it;  if  the  com- 
mittee reports  favorably  the  board  can  then,  if  it  sees  fit, 
reopen  the  case.  But  no  such  action  is  contemplated  in  my 
motion.” 

Dr.  Reamy  again  earnestly  called  on  the  Chairman  to 
appoint  on  the  committee  a representative  of  the  minority. 
He  demanded  it  in  the  name  of  parliamentary  law,  of  cour- 
tesy and  in  the  name  of  common  justice,  but  Chairman  Kuhn 
made  no  sign  in  response,  and  the  motion  of  Dr.  Reed  pre- 
vailed. 

The  delegation  from  the  Citizens’  Committee  then  left, 
and  missed  a goodly  portion  of  the  proceedings  by  their 
going. 

The  academic  faculty,  having  had  the  temerity  to  ask  for 
a rehearing  at  the  hands  of  the  board,  was  treated  with  scant 
courtesy.  Their  communication  was  as  follows : 


— 49 


Cincinnati,  O.,  February  19,  1900. 

To  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati: 

Gentlemen — We  have  been  officially  informed  that,  at  a meeting 
held  on  January  19,  your  honorable  Board  ordered  our  chairs  to  be 
declared  vacant  at  the  end  of  the  college  year,  July  1,  1900.  We 
protest  against  your  action  as  unjust  and  not  in  harmony  with  By- 
Law  12,  which  reads : 

‘‘Any  professorship  or  other  office  in  any  department  of  the 
University  may  be  vacated  at  the  end  of  the  academic  year  by  a vote 
of  a majority  of  all  the  Directors,  or  by  the  same  vote  at  any  time 
on  proof  of  incompetency  or  unbecoming  conduct ; the  person  con- 
cerned, however,  shall,  in  all  cases,  be  notified  before  final  action  is 
taken.” 

We  desire  a reconsideration  of  your  action  and  a full  and  open 
investigation  of  our  work  in  the  University  of  Cincinnati. 

[Signed  by  all  professors  concerned.] 

Dr.  Reed  characterized  their  respectful  petition  as  rank 
insubordination.  He  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
by-laws  of  the  University  provided  that  all  communications 
from  the  faculty  should  come  to  the  board  through  the  hands 
of  the  President. 

“The  communication  should  be  treated  with  just  the 
respect  it  deserves,”  said  Dr.  Reed.  “It  is  an  insult  to  the 
board  and  to  the  President;  it  is  rank  discourtesy,  and  for 
one,  I do  not  propose  to  stand  it.  I move  the  letter  be  sent 
back  to  the  writers,”  and  the  board  concurred,  smashing  the 
right  of  petition  at  one  very  large  and  fell  swoop. 

Then  a letter  from  Judge  Worthington  was  read,  in 
which  he  stated  that  it  was  the  desire  of  Professor  Myers 
that  his  resignation  should  be  accepted  by  the  board,  to  take 
effect  immediately.  The  letter  further  stated  that  Professor 
Myers  would  serve  until  his  successor  should  be  named,  but 
as  he  had  been  serving  without  salary  for  some  time  he 
asked  that  prompt  action  be  taken. 

Another  lengthy  discussion  arose  as  to  whether  Professor 
Myers  ever  had  tendered  his  resignation.  President  Ayers 
said  his  only  knowledge  on  the  subject  had  been  derived 
from  the  letter  of  Professor  Myers  in  the  press. 


50 


Dr.  Reed  moved  that  the  chair  of  Professor  Myers  be 
declared  vacant. 

Mr.  Arnold  said  he  believed  it  would  be  better  to  soothe 
down,  as  far  as  possible,  the  angry  feeling  in  the  University 
atmosphere,  and  he  favored  accepting  the  resignation. 

Dr.  Reed  was  implacable,  however,  until  Mr.  May  sug- 
gested that  the  board  might  ‘‘relieve”  Professor  Myers  from 
further  duty,  and  with  that  distinction,  with  no  difference  in 
the  effect,  the  board  compromised,  and  the  professor  was 
relieved. 


PROFESSORS  AND  TEACHERS. 

The  next  difficulty  came  up  in  the  shape  of  the  following 
letter  from  Miss  Mary  De  Luce: 

Cincinnati,  February  9,  1900. 

To  the  Board  of  University  Trustees: 

Gentlemen — In  obedience  to  commands  that  have  been  issued  by 
my  father,  and  that  are  in  perfect  accord  with  my  convictions  of 
duty,  I hereby  tender  to  the  Board  of  Directors  my  resignation  of  the 
position  of  instructor  in  history. 

Miss  DeLuce  added  that  her  services  were  at  the  disposal 
of  the  board  until  her  successor  could  be  named. 

Dr.  Reed  again  took  the  floor  in  defense  of  the  rights 
and  dignity  of  the  President.  He  said  the  laws  were  too 
specific  for  any  doubt  on  the  subject.  If  one  professor  was 
to  be  allowed  to  communicate  directly  with  the  board,  all 
would  want  to  do  the  same  thing. 

But  Chairman  Kuhn  found  a way  out  of  the  difficulty. 
He  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Miss  DeLuce  was  merely 
an  instructor  and  not  a member  of  the  faculty,  and  then  Dr. 
Reed  mov$d  the  resignation  be  accepted.  So  the  board  went 
on  record  as  allowing  a subordinate  to  do  that  which  its  rules 
forbid  to  a superior. 


51 


Report  of  Special  Committee  on  Behalf  of  the  Board  of 

Trustees. 


DR.  C.  A.  L.  REED  ITS  ALLEGED  AUTHOR. 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  Feb,  22,  1900.] 

The  Board  of  Directors  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati 
met  yesterday  in  special  session,  Chairman  Kuhn  presiding 
and  fourteen  members  present.  The  absentees  were  Messrs. 
May,  Cunningham,  Schmidlapp,  Jones  and  Mayor  Tafel. 
The  Citizens’  Committee  was  not  represented,  and  the  only 
persons  actually  interested  in  the  outcome  present  were 
former  Dean  Hyde  and  a committee  from  the  student  body  of 
the  University.  Chairman  Kuhn  called  on  the  special  com- 
mittee to  report,  and  Dr.  Reed  responded  with  the  compre- 
hensive document  given  below. 

The  annual  reports  of  the  Board  of  Directors  have,  in- 
variably, given  in  glowing  terms,  the  work  of  each  preceding 
academic  year ; the  progress  of  the  students  and  the  devotion 
of  the  faculty  have  been  recorded,  and  that  fact  had  been 
mentioned  by  Dr.  Reamy  in  his  opposition  to  the  course  of 
procedure  adopted  by  the  board  and  President  Ayers.  The 
report  of  the  special  committee,  drawn  by  Dr.  Reed,  it  will 
be  discovered,  confesses  the  fact  of  the  glowing  reports,  but 
lays  the  blame  on  false  statements  made  to  the  board  by 
the  faculty. 

The  point  commented  on  by  an  outsider  was  the  admis- 
sion in  the  report  that  since  the  retirement  of  Governor  Cox 
from  the  Presidency  in  1879,  members  of  the  board  have  been 
the  recipients  of  complaints,  and  that  if  the  complaints  urged 
against  members  of  the  faculty  by  members  of  the  faculty 
were  true,  not  a single  member  of  the  present  teaching  body 
would  have  been  left  in  position.  And  an  irreverent  icono- 
clast asked  why  it  was  that  the  board  allowed  itself  to  be 
deceived  by  a faculty  composed  of  bickering  and  accusing 
members  ? 


52 


The  manner  in  which  the  report  was  received  shows  again 
the  determination  of  the  board  to  stand  by  the  President 
throughout,  and  the  side  of  the  board  is  presented  forcefully, 
and  the  report  is  worthy  the  high  attainments  of  its  author. 

THE  COMMITTEE'S  REPORT. 

To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Directors  of  the  University  of 
Cincinnati : 

Your  committee,  appointed  February  13,  has  been  en- 
trusted with  two  duties,  viz. : First,  to  confer  with  a com- 
mittee appointed  by  a meeting  of  citizens  to  inquire  into  the 
policy  of  reorganization  now  in  progress  in  the  academic 
faculty;  and,  second,  to  consider  the  application  of  the  said 
Citizens’  Committee,  together  with  various  petitions  and 
communications  praying  for  a reconsideration  by  you  of  your 
action  of  January  19  whereby  you  declared  certain  pro- 
fessorships vacant  at  the  end  of  the  present  collegiate  year; 
such  reconsideration  to  be  granted  with  the  special  object  of 
giving  a personal  hearing  to  each  of  the  displaced  professors. 
Your  committee  begs  to  report  upon  both  topics,  as  follows : 

Your  Chairman,  under  date  of  February  14,  notified  the 
Chairman  of  the  Citizens’  Committee  of  the  appointment  of 
your  committee  and  designated  February  16  as  the  day  of 
meeting.  A conference  was  held,  pursuant  to  this  appoint- 
ment, at  which  your  committee  appeared  with  a statement 
of  facts  in  writing,  prepared  to  submit  the  same  for  the  con- 
fidential consideration  of  the  Citizens’  Committee.  These 
conditions  were  declined  by  the  Citizens’  Committee,  which 
insisted  upon  publishing  any  statement  which  might  be  made 
in  its  presence.  Your  committee  thereupon  declined  to  sub- 
mit the  statements  in  its  possession,  as  it  did  not  feel  that 
their  publication  would  be  in  the  interests  of  the  University, 
and,  furthermore,  as  it  did  not  feel  authorized,  under  the 
terms  of  the  resolution  creating  it,  to  commit  the  directory 
to  any  public  declaration.  In  consequence  of  the  attitude  of 
the  Citizens’  Committee,  in  thus  declining  to  receive  the  in- 
formation prepared  for  its  enlightenment,  the  conference 


53 


was  practically  without  result.  This  circumstance  is  pro- 
foundly regretted  by  your  committee,  which  is  convinced 
that,  had  the  Citizens’  Committee  consented  to  receive  the 
information  prepared  in  pursuance  of  your  courteous  action, 
much  of  the  misunderstanding  which  now  exists  relative  to 
the  condition  of  affairs  at  the  University  would  have  been 
avoided,  while  the  necessity  of  publishing  much  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  subjoined  report  would  have  been  averted. 

Your  committee  desires  to  make  the  preliminary  state- 
ment that,  before  an  agreement  was  reached  in  the  recom- 
mendations hereinafter  submitted,  careful  consideration  was 
given,  not  only  to  the  several  communications  received  by 
the  board  from  certain  citizens,  students  and  other  persons, 
but  also  to  the  arguments  advanced  at  the  last  meeting  of 
the  board  in  support  of  the  requests  for  a reconsideration  of 
your  action  of  January  19.  It  has  also  taken  into  considera- 
tion many  antecedent  facts  which  have  a bearing  upon  the 
present  condition,  a brief  recital  of  which  may  serve  as  an 
appropriate  introductory  to  the  recommendations  which  your 
committee  has  'the  honor  to  submit  for  your  consideration. 

IN  THE  BEGINNING. 

The  University  was  opened  for  instruction  in  1875,  with 
a small  faculty  that  had  been  selected  by  the  Board  of  Direct- 
ors, the  Presidency  not  having  been  filled  until  1878,  when 
Mr.  Vickers  was  elected  under  the  title  of  rector.  He  held 
the  office  for  six  years,  when  there  occurred  an  interregnum 
that  was  terminated  by  the  election  of  Governor  Cox  as 
President,  the  term  of  his  office  extending  from  1885  to  1889. 
The  executive  office  remained  vacant  for  the  next  ten  years, 
its  duties  discharged  jointly  by  the  dean  of  the  faculty  and 
the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors.  It  was  but  natural 
that,  during  the  twenty-five  years  embraced  in  the  active 
history  of  the  institution,  many  important  changes  should 
take  place  in  the  personnel  of  the  faculty.  These  were 
accomplished  in  various  ways,  the  resignation  of  a professor 
sometimes  resulted  in  the  promotion  of  an  assistant  or  an 


54 


instructor  who  had  been  employed  in  the  first  instance  with 
no  expectation  of  his  elevation  to  the  professorship.  Some 
men  were  added  to  the  faculty  upon  the  recommendation  of 
that  body,  others  were  elected  by  the  board  solely  upon  nom- 
ination by  some  of  its  members.  A few  only  were  selected 
upon  the  nomination  of  the  executive.  It  thus  happens  that 
the  faculty  as  a body  is  not  at  present,  nor  has  it  at  any  time 
in  its  history  been,  the  product  of  a central  directing  and 
organizing  intelligence  such  as  can  be  typified  only  in  an  able 
President.  It  is  not  surprising  that,  among  elements  thus 
brought  together,  there  should  be  lack  of  congeniality  and 
harmony.  This  fact  has  been  emphasized  in  all  stages  of  the 
history  of  the  institution,  but  especially  has  it  manifested 
itself  in  discord  arising  in  connection  with  the  deanship. 

THE  APPLE  OF  DISCJORD. 

This  office  has  become  such  a source  of  jealousy  and 
bickering  that  after  the  retirement  of  Governor  Cox  from 
the  Presidency  and,  upon  the  solicitation  of  the  faculty  itself, 
the  Board  of  Directors  enacted  a rule  prescribing  that  each 
professor  should  hold  that  office  for  a year  at  a time,  each 
one  succeeding  to  it  in  the  order  of  his  seniority.  This  rule, 
which  had  been  enacted  at  the  instance  of  the  faculty  as  the 
solution  of  its  own  difficulties,  speedily  aggravated  the  very 
condition  it  was  designed  to  overcome,  a fact  that  speedily 
became  patent  to  members,  some  of  whom  are  yet  in  the 
board.  An  effort  was  soon  made  to  rescind  it,  but  failed 
because  of  the  opposition  of  those  who  had  enacted  and  who 
felt  that  it  ought  to  have  further  trial.  The  continued  trial 
only  showed  that  as  each  professor  succeeded  to  the  deanship 
either  he,  or  some  friend  for  him,  sought  to  make  his  appoint- 
ment either  permanent  or  a stepping  stone  to  the  vacant 
Presidency ; while  other  members  of  the  faculty,  equally  am- 
bitious, were  equally  active  in  preventing  such  a consumma- 
tion. The  opposition  in  these  instances  would  take  various 
forms,  such  as  personal  detraction,  charges  of  professional 
incompetency,  or  acts  of  antagonism  open  or  covert,  calcu- 


55 


lated  to  mar,  if  not  to  destroy,  the  force  of  the  prevailing 
administration.  Candidacies  for  the  Presidency  were  crop- 
ping up  in  the  faculty,  each  particular  one  leading  to  in- 
trigues pro  and  con,  the  existence  and  mischievous  results  of 
which  could  not  escape  the  attention  of  the  members  of  the 
directory.  The  friction  'thus  developed  in  the  faculty  became 
so  pronounced  and  its  disastrous  results  so  evident  that  the 
board,  which,  by  this  time,  had  undergone  important  changes 
in  personnel,  rescinded  the  rule  and  appointed  a dean  an- 
nually, the  appointment  of  the  same  office  to  be  renewable  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  board.  It  was  hoped  that  this  change 
would  end  the  difficulty,  but  the  demoralization  which  had 
been  engendered  seemed  to  have  become  permanent,  while 
anything  like  a wdiolesome  esprit  du  corps,  if  it  had  ever 
existed  in  the  faculty,  had  become  a thing  of  the  past. 

THE  COMING  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

It  is  to  be  recognized,  as  already  intimated,  that  the 
long  vacancy  in  the  Presidency  was  contributory  to  the 
demoralization.  There  was  no  time  when  this  fact  was  not 
recognized  by  the  directory,  which,  however,  was  unable  to 
employ  a President  because  of  the  lack  of  funds.  The  chairs 
in  the  faculty  had  been  increased  in  number  to  meet  the 
teaching  requirements  of  the  institution,  while  the  progres- 
sive demands,  at  no  time  unreasonable,  of  the  professors,  for 
increase  of  salaries  had  absorbed  the  revenue  of  the  institu- 
tion. When  the  directory  finally  secured  the  present  three- 
tenths  mill  levy  the  increased  revenue  thereby  afforded  was 
absorbed  by  payments  into  the  sinking  fund  and  the  extra- 
ordinary expense  incident  to  the  furnishing  and  equipment 
of  the  new  university  buildings.  As  soon,  however,  as  there 
was  a prospect  of  having  some  money  with  which  to  move  in 
the  matter,  active  steps  were  taken  to  secure  a President. 
The  committee  appointed  for  this  purpose  opened  extensive 
correspondence  and  visited  many  of  the  leading  universities : 
among  others  Johns  Hopkins,  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
Harvard  and  University  of  Chicago,  in  quest  of  a suitable 


56 


man.  Their  diligence  was  stimulated  by  a knowledge 
of  the  constantly  increasing  confusion  in  the  aca- 
demic faculty,  by  the  full  realization  of  the  fact 
that,  without  important  changes,  the  situation  was,  and 
would  continue  to  be,  hopeless,  and,  finally,  they  were 
spurred  by  the  conviction  that  these  changes  could, 
or  at  least  should,  be  made  only  under  the  direction 
of  a President  who  was  familiar  alike  with  modern 
university  methods  and  with  the  educational  field  from  which 
new  incumbents  must  be  drawn.  The  result  of  the  efforts 
of  the  committee  was  the  unanimous  election  of  Dr.  Howard 
Ayers  to  the  Presidency.  Dr.  Ayers,  who,  at  the  time  of  his 
election,  was  professor  of  biology  in  the  University  of  Mis- 
souri, (was  selected  not  only  because  he  was  a well-educated 
man,  a graduate  of  Harvard  and  of  a leading  German  uni- 
versity, .but  because  he  had  had  experience  in  modern  univer- 
sity work,  notably  at  Harvard,  the  University  of  Michigan 
and  the  University  of  Missouri,  and  had  been  singularly  suc- 
cessful in  managing  some  important  features  of  the  external 
policy  of  the  institution  with  which  he  was  last  connected. 
He  was  familiar  with  men  in  the  educational  field  and  en- 
joyed a reputation  for  unquestioned  morality,  exalted  integ- 
rity and  intrepid  courage — qualities  which  the  committee 
felt  were  essential  in  dealing  with  the  situation  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cincinnati. 

RESPONSIBILITY  OF  THE  DIRECTORY. 

The  foregoing  .statements  make  it  apparent  that  the  policy 
of  reorganization  had  its  initiative  in  the  directory  before  the 
Presidency  was  filled ; indeed,  that  the  necessity  for  carrying 
out  such  a policy  was  the  pressing  consideration  for  filling  the 
executive  office.  The  by-laws  were  amended,  giving  the 
President  the  power  of  recommending  to  the  board  changes 
in  the  faculty,  and  these  amendments  were  made,  first,  with 
reference  to  the  execution  of  this  policy,  and,  second,  with 
reference  to  the  subsequent  good  government  of  the  institu- 
tion. The  policy  was  further  affirmed  by  the  directory  in  its 


57 


emphatic  adoption  of  the  changes  recommended  by  President 
Ayers.  These  acts,  which  were  made  public,  were  sufficient 
evidences  of  the  responsibility  of  the  directory — a respon- 
sibility the  full  measure  of  which  the  governing  body  has 
shown  no  disposition  to  evade ; on  the  contrary,  it  has  made 
its  position  known  by  every  means  'consistent  with  the  proper 
protection  of  the  welfare  of  the  University.  Your  committee 
can  state  with  propriety  that  the  sentiment  actuating  the 
directory  on  this  question  is  so  deep  and  profound  that  there 
are  those  among  its  members  who  feel  that  they  can  not  con- 
sistently remain  in  the  board  if  the  changes  already  declared 
are  not  carried  out,  while  among  those  who  have  expressed 
themselves  to  this  effect  are  honored  benefactors  of  the 
University.  The  policy  is,  therefore,  the  policy  of  the 
directory  and  is  the  policy  of  President  Ayers  only  by  virtue 
of  his  concurrence  in  the  policy  of  the  governing  body.  This 
fact  should  be  clearly  recognized,  the  responsibility  should  be 
placed  precisely  where  it  belongs,  while  the  present  gratui- 
tous persecution  of  President  Ayers  should  cease. 

It  is  probable  that  each  member  of  the  direotory — and 
your  committee  knows  of  absolutely  none  who  does  not  be- 
lieve that  some  changes  ought  to  have  been  made,  but  who, 
in  addition  to  facts  of  common  knowledge,  is  actuated  in 
his  convictions  by  reasons  peculiar  to  himself,  among  those 
facts  of  general  knowledge  to  the  board  which  could  not  but 
have  had  a profound  influence  upon  its  course,  are  some  ca- 
pable O'f  short  summarization. 

COMPLAINTS  FROM  ALUMNI. 

Since  Governor  Cox  retired  from  the  Presidency  mem- 
bers of  the  board  have  been  the  recipients  of  complaints,  and 
serious  complaints,  from  students  and  alumni.  These  com- 
plaints have  ranged  from  recitals  of  discourtesies  to  ex- 
amples of  demonstrated  ignorance  of  subjects  assumed  to  be 
caught  by  members  of  the  faculty.  The  derelictions  of  cer- 
tain professors  have  at  times  aroused  /the  contempt  of  the 
student  body  to  a degree  that  has  found  damaging  public  ex- 


58 


pression.  The  lack  of  discipline  in  the  faculty  and  in  several 
of  the  teaching  departments  promoted  rather  than  suppressed 
such  demonstrations  by  the  student  body,  whose  judgment 
has  been  and  is  confirmed  in  numerous  ways.  Chief  among 
these  is  the  fact  that,  with  an  honorable  exception  or  two, 
no  original  work  worthy  of  note  has  been  done  by  members 
of  the  faculty,  while  practically  nothing  has  been  published 
by  them  calculated  to  make  the  University  attractive  to  resi- 
dent, much  less  non-resident,  students — a distinct  feature  of 
a professor’s  duty.  Some  of  the  professors  are  practically 
unknown  to  the  literature  of  their  respective  (subjects,  even 
after  long  years  of  identification  with  their  respective  depart- 
ments of  instruction.  These  facts  were  confirmed  by 
indubitable  and  even  embarrassing  testimony  received  by 
the  Committee  on  President  while  making  a tour  of  the  lead- 
ing universities.  On  those  trips  that  committee  was  more 
than  once  chagrined  to  ascertain  the  exact  status  of  the  in- 
stitution it.  was  representing — a status  widely  at  variance 
from  that  which,  upon  representation  from  the  faculty,  had 
been  given  our  University  in  our  annual  reports.  The  judg- 
ment of  more  than  one  prominent  educator  expressed  to  that 
committee  as  to  what  was  necessary  to  place  the  University 
in  the  rank  it  should  occupy  among  progressive  institutions 
is  finding  expression  in  the  present  policy  of  reorganization. 
The  committee,  found  men — President  Ayers  among  them — 
who  were  disinclined  to  consider  the  Presidency,  because  of 
the  removals  from  the  faculty  which  it  would  be  necessary 
to  make  before  a first-class  man  might  with  safety  entrust 
his  reputation  to  the  institution.  Graduates  in  various  parts 
of  the  country  have  been  severe  in  their  criticisms  of  the 
scholarship  in  the  faculty.  The  conclusion  derived  from 
such  evidence  is  further  confirmed  by  the  significent  fact  that 
every  member  of  the  .alumni  who  is  a member  of  the  di- 
rectory, eadi  of  whom  knows  the  University  from  every 
standpoint  and  who  can  be  actuated  only  by  a desire  to  pro- 
mote the  status  of  his  alma  mater,  is  an  ardent  supporter  of 
the  changes  which  have  been  declared.  Evidence  of  this 


59 


kind  can  not  be  refuted,  but,  if  it  could,  that  offered  by  the 
faculty  must  be  accepted  as  conclusive.  Within  the  last  dec- 
ade members  of  the  board  have  received  with  annoying 
frequency  denunciatory  statements  from  professors  about 
every  member  of  the  faculty. 

PROFESSORS  ACCUSE  EACH  OTHER. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  if  all  the  suggestions  of  removal 
urged  by  members  of  the  faculty  against  members  of  the 
faculty  had  been  acted  upon,  not  a single  member  of  the 
present  teaching  body  would  have  been  left  in  position.  If 
the  statements  made  by  professors  against  professors  were 
true,  the  verdict  should  be  upon  that  basis ; if  the  statements 
were  untrue,  the  moral  perturbation  thereby  implied  makes 
their  authors  unfit  to  be  connected  with  an  institution  of 
learning;  in  either  event  the  faculty  falls  as  a self-con- 
demned body.  These  facts  force  the  necessity  of  action  upon 
the  directory,  which  is  charged  in  the  will  of  Charles  Mc- 
Micken  to  see  that  “instruction  is  given  in  the  highest 
branches  of  learning  to  the  same  extent  that  they  are  now, 
or  hereafter  may  be,  taught  in  the  leading  universities  of  the 
land;”  and  action  under  this  solemn  injunction  can  not  im- 
ply less  than  the  termination  of  a regime  that  has  provoked 
the  public  contempt  of  the  student  body ; that  is  denounced 
by  distinguished  alumni ; that  is  discredited  by  eminent  edu- 
cators ; that  is  condemned  by  its  own  testimony,  and  that  is 
repudiated  by  its  own  benefactors. 

When  the  time  came  for  action  it  was  not  expected  of 
President  Ayers  to  visit  the  classroom,  and  thus  to  make 
himself  personally  familiar  with  the  technical  qualifications 
of  the  different  professors.  Such  a course  would  have  im- 
plied years  of  investigation,  and  its  prosecution  would  have 
been  as  demoralizing  as  the  evils  sought  to  be  remedied. 
Presidents  of  universities  are  not  in  the  habit  of  following 
such  a policy,  and  members  of  your  committee  who  have 
taken  full  four  years’  courses  in  some  of  the  leading  univer- 
sities have  never  seen  the  President  in  the  classroom. 


60 


There  are  other  and  better  means  of  determining  the 
qualifications  of  a professor,  not  all  of  which  are  technical 
or  educational.  Nor  was  it  expected  that  President  Ayers 
would  'be  able  to  please  those  whose  resignations  were  asked, 
nor  the  friends  interested  in  them,  for  the  very  nature  of  his 
unhappy  duty  made  such  a result  impossible.  Your  com- 
mittee, however,  after  a full  investigation  of  the  facts,  is 
gratified  to  report  that  he  discharged  the  task  with  a dignity 
and  gentleness  that  commends  itself  to  favorable  considera- 
tion. 


EXPEDIENCY  AND  POLITICAL  PULLS. 

The  question  as  to  the  expediency  of  having  made  the 
changes  all  at  once,  as  they  were  made,  or  of  making  them 
gradually,  as  has  been  suggested,  is  one  which  under  the 
circumstances  can  hardly  have  two  sides.  These  circum- 
stances, as  already  given,  were  complicated  by  evidences  of 
more  than  one  kind  of  a determination  on  the  part  of  the 
faculty,  or  at  least  members  of  it,  to  perpetuate  a regime 
which  had  become  pernicious.  Protests  were  made  by  mem- 
bers of  the  faculty  against  giving  the  President  the  power 
of  recommeding  removals.  Intimations  warning  President 
Ayers  against  attempting  removals  from  the  faculty  were 
forwarded  to  him  from  within  that  body  before  his  removal 
to  Cincinnati,  while  an  early  opportunity  was  taken  to  im- 
press him  with  the  strong  political  influence  of  different  pro- 
fessors. Since  his  occupation  of  the  office  there  have  been 
repeated  manifestations  of  insubordination,  not  the  least 
flagrant  of  which  was  a recent  letter  in  the  public  prints.  A 
process  of  gradual  removals,  as  has  been  demonstrated  in 
other  institutions,  would  have  meant  an  annual  disturbance 
hardly  less  pronounced  than  we  are  now  experiencing;  it 
would  have  meant  the  induction  of  new  incumbents  into  un- 
congenial associations  and  under  inimical  influences,  and, 
finally,  it  would  have  meant  the  utter  impossibility  of  secur- 
ing some  of  the  first-class  men  now  offering  themselves  for 
appointment  to  the  present  vacancies  in  the  faculty.  On  the 


61 


+ 


other  hand,  the  policy  that  was  adopted  by  giving  to  the  pro- 
fessors an  opportunity  to  resign  was  humanely  designed  to 
save  them  from  the  opprobrium  of  dismissal ; by  inaugurat- 
ing the  movement  at  this  time,  the  professors  being  per- 
mitted to  remain  until  June,  it  was  thoughtfully  intended  to 
give  them  an  opportunity  to  secure  positions  in  other  institu- 
tions, practically  all  of  which  make  their  contracts  the  first  of 
each  calendar  year ; by  effecting  the  changes  in  a radical  way 
it  was  designated  to  abbreviate  an  unpleasant  incident,  while 
the  thoroughness  of  your  action  was  and  is  designed  to  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  a new  and  better  regime  has  been  in- 
augurated in  our  University.  This  fact  is  conspicuously  rec- 
ognized in  the  extensive  correspondence  from  the  many  first- 
class  men  who  have  become  applicants  for  the  vacancies  now 
existing  in  the  faculty — men,  some  of  whom  would  not  en- 
tertain overtures  to  come  here  until  after  the  present  radical 
step  had  been  taken.  The  men  who  will  be  selected  by  your 
honorable  body  will  bring  new  energy  and  new  methods  into 
the  institution,  and  by  their  general  superiority  will  stand  as 
a final  vindication  of  the  action  you  have  taken.  It  may  be 
said  with  truthfulness  that  should  the  entire  present  faculty 
withdraw  in  a body  the  work  of  the  classes  would  go  on 
with  but  trifling  interruption.  There  is  not,  therefore,  a 
crisis,  or  anything  like  a crisis,  in  the  affairs  of  the  Univer- 
sity, and  there  does  not  exist  in  the  present  necessities  of  the 
institution  any  reason  why  you  should  retrace  a single  step 
already  taken  by  your  honorable  body  in  the  work  of  reor- 
ganization. It  is  a fact  with  no  exception  known  to  your 
committee,  that  every  member  of  the  board  regretted  the  ne- 
cessity of  disturbing  any  professor  in  the  relations  he  for- 
merly sustained  to  the  University,  while  each  one  hoped  that 
some  , cherished  friend  in  the  faculty  might  escape  the  execu- 
tive decree.  This  sentiment,  together  with  a full  knowledge 
that  to  effect  the  changes  Which  have  been  made  would  be 
to  engender  deep  feeling  and  hars'h  criticism,  converted  an 
evident  duty  into  a most  unwelcome  task.  It  was  not  ren- 
dered less  so  by  the  conviction  that  duty  likewise  demanded 


62 


from  the  board  a silence  that  would  lead  to  a misunder- 
standing and  censure — a silence  which  is  now  broken  only 
in  response  to  demands  which  your  committee  looks  upon 
as  being  as  inconsiderate  and  unwise  as  they  are  imperative. 


THE  FINAL  CONCLUSION. 

It  was  with  this  feeling  that  the  board,  consisting  of  the 
Chairman,  Mr.  Oscar  W.  Kuhn,  and  Messrs.  Frank  J.  Jones, 
Wm.  A.  Procter,  Briggs  Cunningham,  J.  G.  Schmid- 
lapp,  Elliott  H.  Pendleton,  Joseph  J.  Butler,  J.  Wm. 
Luhn,  Edward  Senior,  Chas.  F.  Windisch,  Max  B.  May, 
John  B.  Peaslee,  Brent  Arnold,  Dr.  T.  A.  Reamy,  J.  M.  Rob- 
inson, E.  T.  Bliss,  Mayor  Tafel  and  Charles  A.  L.  Reed,  after 
long  and  diligent  study  of  the  situation,  approached  the  work 
of  reorganization,  and,  with  an  all  but  unanimous  vote, 
adopted  the  recommendations  of  Dr.  Ayers.  That  report 
contained  a probable  disappointment  for  every  man  who 
voted  for  its  adoption,  but  the  board  was  actuated  by  the 
conviction  that  the  time  had  arrived  when  personal  pref- 
erences slhould  Ibe  subordinate  to  public  duty.  It  had  spent 
years  in  accumulating  evidence,,  and  it  was  conscious  of  no 
necessity  for  trifling  away  further  time  on  either  interested 
testimony  or  specious  argumentation.  It  knew  the  facts 
and  acted  upon  them.  This  point,  however,  was  not  attained 
until  many  years  of  experience  and  observation  had  settled 
into  that  general,  but  profound,  conviction  that  comes  onlv 
after  long  and  earnest  devotion  to  the  welfare  of  an  enter- 
prise or  an  institution.  Your  committee  believe  that  your 
honorable  board  has  not  sought  and  does  not  desire  to  make 
a case  against  any  particular  professor,  but  has  taken  steps 
to  terminate  a regime  the  continuation  of  whidh  is  deemed 
inimical  to  the  welfare  of  the  University.  This  being  true, 
and  recognizing  the  demoralizing  influence,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  utter  futility  of  a formal  hearing  in  the  case  of  each  in- 
dividual professor,  your  committee  recommends  that  the 
clerk  be  and  is  hereby  instructed  to  notify  the  Chairman  of 


63 


the  Citizens’  Committee  and  other  petitioners  that  their  re- 
quest that  you  reconsider  your  action  of  January  19,  declar- 
ing certain  vacancies  in  the  academic  faculty,  is  respect- 
fully declined.  Oscar  W.  Kuhn. 

Charles  A.  L.  Reed. 

John  B.  Peaslee. 

Max  B.  May. 

Elliott  H.  Pendleton, 

On  the  conclusion  of  the  reading  of  the  report  by  Dr. 
Reed,  Mr.  Butler  moved  its  adoption,  and  Chairman  Kuhn 
put  the  question.  The  one  negative  vote,  fourteen  members 
being  present,  was  cast  by  Dr.  Reamy,  and  Chairman  Kuhn 
declared  the  report  approved. 


An  Incident* 


On  the  morning  of  March  5,  1900,  the  Professor  of 
Physics  informed  the  President  that  he  desired,  if  possible, 
to  retire  from  the  University  at  the  end  of  two  weeks,  by 
which  time  he  would  have  discharged  all  of  his  responsibil- 
ities in  connection  with  the  construction  of  the  new  physical 
laboratory.  In  order  to  avoid  the  disturbance  of  his  classes 
he  strongly  recommended  the  President  to  allow  the  In- 
structor in  Physics  to  take  charge  of  them  for  the  remainder 
of  the  term.  With  proper  assistance  the  Instructor  could  do 
this  as  he  had  been  in  the  department  for  six  years,  was 
familiar  with  the  Professor’s  methods,  and  would  con- 
tinue the  use  of  his  syllabus  to  the  great  convenience  of  the 
students. 

After  this  interview  with  the  President,  the  Professor 
of  Physics  immediately  informed  the  Instructor  in  Physics 
of  the  action  he  had  taken.  The  President  summoned  the 
Instructor  to  a conference  and  one  hour  later  the  Professor 
of  Physics  received  the  following  communication : 


64 


Cincinnati,  March  5,  1900. 

Prof.  Thomas  French,  Jr., 

Department  of  Physics,  University  of  Cincinnati. 

Dear  Sir: — 

I have  made  arrangements  for  continuing  your  part  of  the  work 
in  Physics,  beginning  with  to-morrow  morning. 

I assume  that  this  arrangement  will  please  you,  since  it  relieves 
you  at  once,  and  I am  glad  to  be  able  to  accommodate  you  thus 
promptly.  Very  truly  yours, 

Howard  Ayers. 

This  communication  was  responded  to  as  follows : 

Cincinnati,  O.,  March  5,  1900. 

Dr.  Howard  Ayers  : 

Dear  Sir: — 

Your  note  offering  to  relieve  me  from  further  work  is  received. 

In  keeping  with  your  expressed  wish  I gave  you  the  desired 
notice  of  my  intention  of  placing  my  resignation  in  your  hands  on 
the  day  of  the  next  Board  meeting  two  weeks  from  to-day.  I was 
employed  by  the  Board  and,  as  a man  of  honor,  I desire  to  continue 
my  work  until  the  Board  has  had  an  opportunity  of  acting  on  my 
resignation.  Yours,  etc., 

Thomas  French,  Jr. 

It  is  needless  to  add  that  the  Professor  continued  faith- 
fully in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  until  relieved  by  the 
proper  authorities. 


Unjust  Censure  of  the  Faculty. 


REFUSAL  TO  HEAR  THE  REPORT  OF  PROF.  THOMAS  FRENCH 
ACCOMPANYING  HIS  RESIGNATION. 


Remarkable  Admissions  by  President  Ayers. 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  March  19,  1900.] 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cincinnati  were  slow  in  gathering  around  the  big 
table  yesterday,  and  the  telephone  was  called  into  requisi- 


65 


tion  in  the  efforts  to  secure  even  a quorum.  It  is  probable 
that,  'had  the  members  known  of  the  coming  of  the  com- 
munication of  Prof.  Thomas  French  and  of  the  motions  made 
by  Dr.  Reamy,  the  attendance  would  have  been  prompt  and 
complete.  From  Chairman  Kuhn  down  there  were  state- 
ments that  the  meeting  would  be  uneventful  and  a speedy 
adjournment  follow  the  roll-call.  But  the  reckoning  was 
without  the  host,  and  the  first  gun  was  fired  on  the  motion 
to  approve  the  minutes  of  the  last  regular  meeting  of  the 
board,  at  which  the  Citizens’  Committee  presented  its 
protest. 

Chairman  Kuhn  put  the  motion  on  the  approval  of  the 
minutes,  when  Dr.  Reamy  took  the  floor : — 

‘T  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  board  to  that  por- 
tion of  the  minutes  which  concerns  the  action  of  the  board, 
directing  the  return  to  'the  academic  faculty  of  their  petition 
for  a hearing  at  the  hands  of  the  board. 

“It  was  claimed  at  the  time,  and  as  the  basis  for  the  action 
of  the  board,  that  the  communication  had  not  come  through 
the  proper  channel,  the  hands  of  the  President,”  said  Dr. 
Reamy.  “It  was  stated  by  the  gentleman  proposing  the 
motion,  Dr.  Reed,  that  the  academic  faculty  had  been  guilty 
of  an  act  of  gross  insubordination  in  presenting  the  petition 
directly  to  the  board.  The  affirmative  vote  by  which  the 
petition  was  returned  to  the  academic  faculty  was  given 
under  a misapprehension,  for  the  President  had,  at  the  very 
moment  the  vote  was  taken  and  the  result  announced,  and 
before  that  time,  the  original  letter  of  the  academic  faculty 
in  his  pocket,  and  said  nothing  while  the  academic  faculty 
was  being  censured  by  this  board  for  an  offense  of  which  the 
members  of  the  faculty  were  innocent.  The  Chairman  of 
the  board  knew  at  the  time  that  the  petition  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  President,  yet  neither  he  nor  the  President,  and  I am 
greatly  surprised  at  it,  said  one  word  of  that  possession.  I told 
Dr.  Reed  of  the  facts,  and  now  give  him  the  opportunity  to 
move  to  expunge  from  the  minutes  the  action  of  the  board.” 


66 


THE  DEBATE  LIVENS  UP. 

“Nevertheless,  such  was  the  action  of  the  board,”  said 
Chairman  Kuhn.  “After  the  approval  of  the  minutes  a mo- 
tion to  expunge  would  be  in  order,  if  any  member  should 
make  it.” 

The  matter  dropped  for  the  moment  and  President  Ayers 
submitted  his  monthly  report,  the  details  of  which,  together 
with  other  routine  business  transacted,  are  given  in  another 
column.  In  the  report  of  the  President  he  mentioned  the 
fact  of  his  receipt  of  the  resignation  of  Prof.  French,  of  the 
Department  of  Physios,  and  recommended  that  it  be  accepted, 
as  Prof.  French  did  not  desire  to  remain  at  the  University 
until  the  close  of  the  academic  year. 

Dr.  Reamy  asked  if  the  resignation  of  Prof.  French  was 
not  accompanied  by  a communication.  President  Ayers  re- 
sponded affirmatively,  and  Dr.  Reamy  demanded  that  it  be 
read  to  the  board. 

“The  communication  of  Prof.  French  is  not  lengthy,” 
said  Dr.  Reamy,  “but  it  is  of  immense  value  to  us  and  to  the 
public  at  this  time,  showing,  as  it  does,  clearly  and  concisely 
the  work  done  in  his  department  at  the  University.  It  is 
due  to  Prof.  French,  it  is  due  to  the  University,  it  is  due  to  us 
and  due  to  the  public  that  it  be  read.  If  there  is  in  it  one 
word  of  harsh  criticism  of  the  board,  I will  move  to  stay 
-the  reading.” 

Mr.  May  promptly  moved  that  the  communication  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Academic  Department,  and  met 
with  a second. 

“Such  a course  is  not  respectful  to  Prof.  French.  It  is 
disrespectful  in  the  highest  degree  to  a gentleman  who  has 
served  the  University  for  seventeen  long  years,  and  served  It 
faithfully  and  with  honor,”  said  Dr.  Reamy.  “Members  of 
this  board  have  stood  on  this  floor,  and  we  have  had  speeches 
from  them  telling  of  the  wonderful  work  of  the  University 
of  Cincinnati,  its  glory  and  its  prosperity,  its  growth  and 
its  fulness  of  accomplishment.  Now  comes  one  of  the  pro- 


fessors  who  participated  largely  in  the  great  work  and  sends 
in  a respectful  communication,  giving  a summary  of  his 
work  done  under  your  administration;  a communication 
more  important  to  us  than  any  that  has  come  to  us  for 
months.  I insist  that  it  be  read,  for  it  is  due  to  him  and  to 
ourselves,  to  our  self-respect,  to  our  dignify  and  to  our  con- 
sciousness of  right  to  hear  it. 

DO  YOU  WANT  TO  SMOTHER  IT  ? 

"Do  you  want  to  smother  it?”  asked  Dr.  Reamy,  when 
Mr.  May  called  for  the  question,  and  the  paper  was  referred. 

Thereupon  the  board  took  up  its  burden  of  routine  again, 
and  matters  progressed  in  quiet  until  Dr.  Reed  took  the  floor 
and  asked : 

“I  want  to  speak  to  the  motion  of  Dr.  Reamy  that  certain 
portions  of  the  minutes  be  expunged,”  said  he.  “I  made  the 
motion  to  return  the  communication  of  the  academic  faculty 
to  the  gentlemen  who  sent  it  to  us,  for  the  reason  that  I be- 
lieve their  action  to  have  been  grossly  insubordinate.  I have 
been  told  my  motion  was  an  error.  If  so,  I am  willing  to 
make  due  correction.  I want  to  ask  the  Chairman  for 
the  facts.” 

Chairman  Kuhn  said  that  at  the  last  regular  meeting  an 
envelope  had  been  handed  him.  On  opening  it  he  found 
enclosed  the  communication  from  the  academic  faculty. 

“A  postscript  said  a duplicate  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
President.  That  was  the  fact.  I saw  the  duplicate  in  the 
hands  of  President  Ayers  at  that  meeting.  I treated  the 
copy  sent  to  me  as  the  original,  and  laid  it  before  'the  board, 
with  the  result  that  it  was  returned  to  the  faculty,”  said 
Chairman  Kuhn. 

“I  hold  it  exceedingly  strange  that  you  sat  in  your  place 
at  the  head  of  this  table  knowing  that  President  Ayers  had 
the  petition  for  a hearing  in  his  possession,  and  that  neither 
you  nor  he  informed  the  board  of  the  fact — a fact  which 
relieves  the  members  of  the  academic  faculty  from  the  charge 
of  insubordination,  for  they  had  sent  the  petition  to  the  Pres- 


68 


ident,  as  the  rules  require.  Yet  you  gentlemen  said  nothing 
of  the  facts.  I may  add  that  a member  of  the  academic 
faculty  stated  to  me  that  their  reason  for  sending  a duplicate 
to  the  board  was  because  they  felt  that  had  but  one  been  sent 
the  President  would  not  have  communicated  it  to  the  board,” 
said  Dr.  Reamy.  “The  communication  sent  to  President 
Ayers  was  the  original,  .and  he  made  no  sign  to  the  board, 
and  neither  did  the  'Chairman,  of  his  possession  of  it.” 

Dr.  Reed  interrupted  Dr.  Reamy  to  say  that  he  was 
obliged  to  leave,  but  that  the  statement  of  the  Chairman  sat- 
isfied him  that  the  action  of  the  board  was  right. 

“Right?”  exclaimed  Dr.  Reamy.  “Right?”  When  the 
Chairman  of  this  board  and  the  President  of  the  University 
consulted  together  as  to  which  one  of  the  two  petitions  should 
be  treated  as  the  original  and  concluded  to  take  that  one 
which  had  come  to  the  hands  of  Chairman  Kuhn  as  the  orig- 
ignal,  not  stating  the  entire  facts  to  the  board,  and  allowing 
the  vote  to  return  the  communication  to  be  taken  under  a mis- 
apprehension ? It  that  right  ? When  the  President  of  the  Uni- 
versity stated  to  the  Chairman  of  this  board  the  fact  of  his 
possession  of  the  petition  ilt  was  the  Chairman’s  duty  to  have 
stated  the  facts  to  the  board,  but  he  did  not.  The  facts  be- 
longed to  the  board,  and  the  board  should  have  had  them.” 

PRESIDENT  AYERS  EXPLAINS. 

President  Ayers  took  the  floor  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
remarks  of  Dr.  Reamy. 

“I  desire  to  state  to  the  board  that  the  communication 
from  the  academic  faculty  was  not  handed  to  me  in  person 
by  the  faculty,”  said  he.  “It  was  left  in  my  office  with  the 
registrar,  who  sent  it  to  me  by  a messenger  boy.  I did  have 
it  at  the  meeting  spoken  of ; that  is  true.” 

“It  is  not  of  the  least  moment  whether  you  received  the 
communication  directly  from  the  hands  of  the  academic  fac- 
ulty, or  at  the  hands  of  the  messenger  service,”  said  Dr. 
Reamy.  “The  fact  of  importance  is  the  fact  that  you  had  the 
original  communication  in  your  possession,  and  did  not 


69 


make  the  fact  known  to  the  hoard.  Had  you  done  so  the 
censure  of  the  academic  faculty  would  not  have  been  made; 
and,  as  it  is,  the  crime  did  not  exist.  The  censure  (was  be- 
cause of  the  misapprehension  of  the  facts  caused  by  the 
concealment  of  the  possession  of  the  document  in  the  hands 
of  the  President.  Aristotle  taught  that  slaveholding  was 
right,  and  a domestic  necessity ; but  he  also  taught  that  it  was 
not  wise  to  enslave  Greeks,”  and  the  interesting  meeting 
of  the  board  came  to  an  end,  the  minutes  remaining  as  they 
were,  and  the  communication  from  Prof.  French  remaining 
unread.  But  it  is  not  smothered,  for  it  is  given  below : 

REPORT  OF  PROF.  FRENCH. 

Cincinnati,  O.,  March  19,  1900. 

To  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  University : 

Gentlemen — Having  decided  to  sever  my  connection  with 
the  University  of  Cincinnati,  I beg  leave  to  submit  a sum- 
mary final  report : 

The  department  of  physics  was  first  organized  as  a dis- 
tinct department  at  the  time  of  my  appointment  to  the  chair, 
in  the  year  1883. 

EARLY  PERIOD. 

A few  basement  rooms  with  meager  equipment  served  as 
a physical  laboratory. 

The  study  of  electricity  was  then  beginning  to  demand 
especial  attention,  yet  for  some  years  I was  wholly  dependent 
for  an  electric  current  upon  the  nearly  obsolete  primary 
battery. 

As  private  and  public  electric  plants  became  installed 
about  the  city,  I was  frequently  called  upon  to  make  photo- 
metric and  other  tests,  and  such  occasions  were  utilized  as  a 
means  of  instruction  to  advanced  students. 

Finally,  in  the  year  1888,  I was  so  fortunate  as  to  secure 
the  privilege  of  running  wires  from  a neighboring  Edison 
plant  to  the  physical  laboratory.  About  this  time  I had  the 
honor,  incidentally,  of  serving  the  city  in  the  capacity  of  Con- 


70 


suiting  Electrician,  and  all  insulation  tests,  rendered  neces- 
sary by  the  new  regulations,  were  made  in  the  physical 
laboratory.  This  work  was  instructive  to  students,  and  our 
newly  acquired  facilities  were  at  once  productive  of  great 
benefit. 

The  generous  owner  of  the  plant,  the  late  Mr.  Christian 
Moerlein,  had  given  me  permission  to  use  the  current  ad 
libitum  for  all  experimental  purposes,  without  any  cost  to 
the  University.  This  valuable  concession  was  extended  at 
my  request  to  the  chemical  laboratory,  and  enjoyed  without 
interruption  until  our  removal  to  Burnet  Woods,  a period  of 
eight  years. 

AT  BURNET  WOODS. 

It  was  found  impracticable  to  extend  an  experimental 
line  to  the  new  site  of  the  University  in  Burnet  Woods,  and 
again  I found  myself  destitute  of  facilities  for  teaching  the 
important  subject  of  electricity. 

Under  your  special  authorization  I then  undertook  to 
raise  a fund  with  which  to  purchase  dynamo-electric  ma- 
chinery and  install  the  same  in  the  large  room  already  pro- 
vided for  the  purpose  in  the  new  quarters. 

At  my  suggestion  the  width  of  this  room,  as  originally 
planned,  had  been  increased  by  nine  feet,  thereby  giving  a 
room  of  50  by  35  feet. 

From  Mr.  Moerlein  I received  a gift  of  $1,000;  from  Mr. 
Mooney,  Mr.  Hobart  and  other  manufacturers,  I received 
generous  donations  toward  the  purchase  price  of  needed  ap- 
pliances, and  your  honorable  body  came  to  my  aid  with  an 
appropriation  of  $500,  for  the  purchase  of  an  engine  and  ac- 
cessories. A fifteen-kilowatt  dynamo  was  constructed  to 
order,  according  to  a special  design.  This  machine  is  equiv*  . 
alent  to  four  dynamos  in  one,  delivering,  as  desired,  four 
different  orders  of  currents,  to  wit,  an  ordinary  direct  cur- 
rent, a simple  alternating  current,  two-phase  alternating  cur- 
rents and  three-phase  alternating  currents. 

The  further  equipment  of  the  dynamo  room  has  proceeded 


71 


gradually  since  that  time,  and  now  includes  a large  switch- 
hoard  with  all  needful  accessories. 

In  this  connection,  as  well  as  regards  the  general  work 
of  the  department,  I take  pleasure  in  emphasizing  the  val- 
uable service  of  Mr.  Louis  E.  Bogen,  the  efficient  instructor 
in  physics,  Who  has  been  in  the  department  for  six  years. 

VALUE  OF  THE  PRESENT  EQUIPMENT. 

The  total  value  at  the  present  time  of  all  apparatus  and 
appliances  in  the  physical  department  is  $6,500.  This  is  ex- 
clusive of  furniture  and  of  the  new  appointments  in  Cun- 
ningham Hall,  and  as  according  to  a detailed  inventory  and 
appraisement  completed  and  .submitted  to  the  President  last 
fall.  The  aggregate  value  of  donations,  secured  by  me  for 
the  department,  in  the  form  of  apparatus,  money  or  equiva- 
lent service,  but  not  including  books,  is  $3,050.  While  in 
itself  not  large,  the  latter  aggregate  is  seen  to  be  nearly  one- 
half  of  the  entire  value  of  the  present  equipment.  In  this 
sum  'the  value  of  the  electric  current,  furnished  to  two  labora- 
tories for  eight  consecutive  years,  is  placed  at  $800.  In 
money  I have  contributed  personally  the  sum  of  $510.  Of 
this  amount  $400  was  paid  at  one  time  into  the  treasury  and 
subsequently  drawn  out  on  vouchers  in  payment  for  appa- 
ratus ; the  balance  has  been  expended  directly  at  various 
times,  and  no  report  made  o f it  prior  to  this  time. 

Last  month  I had  ‘the  honor  to  report  and  to  transmit  to 
you  the  gift  of  $101  from  the  Bullock  Electric  Company  for 
the  purchase  of  a hysteresis  meter.  My  communication 
seems  to  have  been  overlooked,  and  I again  call  attention  to 
the  gift,  that  due  acknowledgment  may  be  made  to  the 
company. 

All  dynamo-electric  machinery  possessed  by  the  depart- 
ment has  been  obtained  by  me  without  any  financial  aid  from 
your  honorable  body.  To  the  department  library  I have 
given  a set  of  electrical  journals  and  other  bo'oks.  Many 
volumes  of  Wiedemann’s  Annalen,  costing  $12  per  year, 


72 


have  been  promised  to  me  by  a friend.  When  they  come 
to  hand  I shall  take  pleasure  in  placing  them  in  the  library 
of  the  department. 

THE  TRAINING  AFFORDED. 

Wdith  rapidly  increasing  classes,  my  time  has  been  mainly 
absorbed  in  teaching.  The  character  of  the  training  ac- 
quired by  'students  is  best  shown  by  their  subsequent  careers. 

To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  not  one  of  the  young  men 
who  have  taken  the  full  four  years’  course  in  physics  has 
failed  to  meet  with  gratifying  success. 

A few  years  after  graduation  one  of  these  became  elec- 
trician-in-chief  of  the  Eddy  Electric  Company,  of  Hartford, 
Conn. ; some  are  well-known  electrical  engineers  in  this  city 
During  the  late  war  one  received  a Government  appointment 
as  Lieutenant  of  Engineers,  after  undergoing  a rigid  exam- 
ination ; another  is  a valued  professor  in  Baker  University ; 
another,  a graduate  of  only  two  years’  standing,  was  in 
charge  of  the  testing  department  of  the  Bullock  Electric 
Company,  and  has  now  been  sent  to  England  by  that  firm 
to  superintend  the  installation  of  plants.  Even  among  the 
undergraduates  are  two  students  of  the  present  senior  class, 
who,  with  some  assistance,  have  constructed  an  induction 
motor  of  one  kilowatt  capacity  that  .would  reflect  credit  upon 
practicing  engineers  of  much  experience. 

INCIDENTAL  WORK- 

Incidentally  I have  given  many  courses  of  public  lec- 
tures, including  courses  addressed  especially  to  teachers,  to 
engineers  and  to  physicians.  At  one  time  I organized  lec- 
ture courses  in  which  various  members  of  the  faculty  took 
part. 

The  Journal  of  Terrestrial  Magnetism  was  issued  in  con- 
nection with  the  Department  of  Physics  and  Mathematics 
during  the  term  of  its  founder,  Prof.  L.  A.  Bauer.  When, 
as  editor,  I became  associated  with  Prof.  Bauer,  the  field  of 
the  journal  was  enlarged  and  its  title  changed  to  “Terrestrial 


73 


•Magnetism  and  Atmospheric  Electricity.”  This  journal  en- 
joys an  international  reputation,  the  majority  of  its  sub- 
scribers residing  in  foreign  lands. 

Much  attention  has  been  attracted  of  late  to  differential 
absorption,  as  illustrated  by  Roentgen  rays,  and  to  the  pro- 
duction of  electric  light  without  wires.  The  importance  of 
the  latter  subject  is  due  to  the  enormous  saving  that  will 
result  when  it  is  possible  to  obtain  light  without  the  present 
excessive  loss  of  energy  in  the  form  of  nonluiminous  heat. 
The  eradication  of  this  loss  will  mean  a saving  of  90  or  more 
per  cent.  It  is  a fact  worthy  of  mention,  since  not  gener- 
ally known,  that  from  the  physical  laboratory  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cincinnati  observations  were  first  reported  indicat- 
ing the  possibility  of  electric  illumination  without  wires, 
and  also  the  discovery  of  actinic  action  through  opaque  sub- 
stances on  photographic  plates. 

These  observations,  be  it  noted,  did  not  involve  the  dis- 
covery, or  unconscious  employment,  of  Roentgen  rays ; they 
were  in  a distinct  yet  neighboring  territory.  (Proceedings 
of  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science. 

Vol.  39-) 

It  has  been  aptly  said  that  physics  as  a science  has 
reached  the  fifth  place  of  decimals.  Research  work  in  this 
science  requires  special  facilities  and  the  expenditure  of 
money.  So  great  has  been  the  dearth  of  first  necessities  for 
the  training  of  students  that  no  money  has  been  available 
for  research  work  in  pure  science,  a fact  which  has  caused 
my  work  to  extend  itself  in  the  practical  lines  of  electrical 
engineering.  In  the  completion,  however,  of  Cunningham 
Hall,  one  long-felt  need  has  been  met. 

THE  NEW  PHYSICAL  LABORATORY. 

In  summer  vacations  I have  spent  much  time  and  money 
in  the  visitation  of  other  institutions  in  furtherance  of  plans 
and  specifications  for  a new  laboratory.  To  the  design  of 
the  new  physical  laboratory  in  Cunningham  Hall,  and  to  the 
superintendence  of  the  construction  of  its  interior  appoint- 


74 


ments,  I have  given  my  best  thought  and  attention.  Twenty 
different  rooms  are  provided,  including  special  laboratories 
for  advanced  or  original  work  in  heat,  optics,  photometry, 
high  vacua,  chemical  physics,  magnetism  and  electricity. 

The  prospectus  drawn  up  for  the  next  catalogue  includes 
many  new  courses  and  new  lines  of  work  in  utilization  of 
the  new  facilities.  Several  of  the  rooms,  however,  are 
totally  lacking  in  equipment. 

In  the  completion  o*f  this  laboratory  I have  attained  the 
central  aim  of  my  striving  for  seventeen  years.  I am  now 
impelled  iby  existing  conditions  to  lay  down  my  commission 
and  relinquish  further  long-cherished  plans. 

Having  given  the  President  due  notice  of  my  intention, 
I now  tender  my  resignation,  in  the  desire  that  it  take  effect 
at  once.  Respectfully, 

Thomas  French,  Jr. 


Refutation  of  Incorrect  or  Misleading  Statements  in  the 
Report  of  the  Special  Committee  of  the 
Board  of  Directors, 


[From  the  Commercial  Tribune,  March  24,  1900.] 

The  first  meeting  of  the  Citizens’  Committee  on  Uni- 
versity Affairs  since  the  meeting  of  the  University  Trustees 
the  other  night  took  place  yesterday  afternoon. 

“These  University  Trustees  are  counting  without  their 
host,”  said  General  Hickenlooper,  the  Chairman.  “The 
highhanded  proceedings  at  the  last  meeting  look  very  like 
a conspiracy  to  defend  and  cloak  the  President  at  the  ex- 
pense of  both  justice  and  truth,  and  we  doubt  if  the  fair- 
plav  loving  citizens  of  Cincinnati  will  quietly  submit  to  anv 
such  flagrant  Caesarism. 

“We,  as  members  of  the  Citizens’  Committee,  have  re- 
ceived abundant  evidence  that  this  dreadful  tangle  in  our 
University  has  assumed  the  importance  of  a national  issue 
in  educational  circles.  We  have  proof  that  the  one-man 


75 


power  which  the  'board  has  vested  in  this  President  is  looked 
upon  in  university  circles  all  over  the  country  as  a fatal  stab 
at  the  educational  tenure  of  office.  We,  therefore, 
voice  the  sentiments  not  alone  of  our  indignant  fellow 
citizens  here,  but  also  a very  widespread  protest  among 
professional  scholars  all  over  the  country,  when  we  call  a 
halt.” 

Other  members  of  the  committee  were  equally  em- 
phatic in  their  condemnation.  Dr.  Robert  L.  Stewart  was 
not  on  hand,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goss  is  out  of  the  city,  but 
Rev.  David  Philipson,  James  A.  Green  and  William  N. 
Hobart,  the  remaining  members,  used  language  vitriolic 
enough  in  discussing  the  matter. 

“I  feel  confident,”  said  Mr.  Hobart,  “that  the  indigna- 
tion among  our  best  citizens  is  intense  over  this  question, 
especially  at  the  double-dealing  shown  up  at  the  last  board 
meeting  by  Dr.  Reamy.” 

Mr.  Green  concurred  in  all  these  protesting  sentiments. 

The  committee  had  before  it  a •communication  submitted 
from  Prof.  Thomas  French,  Jr.,  who  has  resigned  from  the 
faculty,  which  it  was  asked  to  pass  upon  and  to  lay  before  the 
public  of  Cincinnati.  The  committee  unanimously  decided 
on  making  it  public.  It  is  known  to  represent  the  views  of 
the  entire  faculty,  and  is  as  follows : 


76 


STATEMENT  BY  PROFESSOR  FRENCH. 


IT  IS  ADDRESSED  TO  THE  CITIZENS^  COMMITTEE  AND  TO  THE 

PUBLIC. 


To  the  Citizens’  Committee  and  the  Public  of  Cincinnati: 

After  the  forceful  presentation  and  vindication  of  our 
cause  by  a large  committee  of  intelligent  citizens,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  faculty  felt  disinclined  to  take  any  notice  of  the 
evasive  and  sophistical  report  reacl  and  adopted  at  a meeting 
of  the  Board  of  Directors  in  defense  of  its  recent  action. 
This  report,  be  it  noted,  constitutes  its  entire  defense. 

Manifest  to  all  was  the  impossibility  of  reconciling  the 
sudden  condemnation  of  the  faculty  with  the  successive 
reports  of  the  directory,  setting  forth  in  glowing  colors, 
year  after  year,  the  ability,  efficiency  and  devotion  of  the 
faculty. 

We  had  abundant  evidence  that  thoughtful  minds  every- 
where correctly  analyzed  the  report.  An  eminent  specialist, 
for  example,  wrote  to  the  Board  of  Directors  asking  for  any 
facts  known  to  it  by  reason  of  which  a certain  one  of  our 
number  should  not  be  recommended  by  him  for  a new  posi- 
tion. In  reply  he  received  a copy  of  this  report.  After 
reading  the  report,  he  at  once  announced  his  intention  of 
writing  the  recommendation. 

This  report,  however,  contains  grave  accusations,  re- 
flecting upon  every  member  of  the  faculty,  not  excepting 
the  several  men  whose  resignations  were  not  demanded. 

As  a matter  of  simple  justice  to  myself  and  to  all  of  my 
former  colleagues,  I now  feel  it  to  be  my  duty,  as  a private 
citizen,  who  values  character  more  than  all  else  in  the  world, 
to  submit  to  the  public  a brief  statement.  Without  vindic- 
tiveness of  feeling  this  statement  is  written,  not  for  the  pres- 
ent only,  but  also  for  the  future. 

In  the  Board  of  Directors,  consisting  at  the  time  of 


77 


eighteen  members,  one  voice  only  has  been  raised  in  opposi- 
tion to  this  report.  The  noble  utterances  of  Dr.  Reamy  will 
be  recorded  in  history.  When  the  committee  which  drew  up 
this  report  was  appointed,  this  same  voice  was  heard  plead- 
ing, in  the  name  of  justice  and  of  parliamentary  usage,  that 
the  minority  be  represented  on  that  committee.  The  voice 
was  heard,  but  not  heeded.  It  would  be  a great  misappre- 
hension, however,  to  suppose  that  the  remaining  seventeen 
members  of  the  board  all  subscribed  to  the  report  or  voted  in 
favor  of  the  action  previously  taken.  At  the  secret  session, 
held  in  the  rooms  of  a court  of  justice,  in  which  the  recom- 
mendations presented  by  Dr.  Ayers  were  approved,  only 
fourteen  members  were  present.  Of  this  number  eleven 
voted  in  the  affirmative,  one  in  the  negative,  and  two  de- 
clined to  vote.  Of  those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative,  a 
number  have  assured  members  of  the  faculty  that  they  had 
no  foreknowledge  of  any  intention  to  dismiss  nearly  the 
entire  faculty,  but  they  saw  no  other  course  open  to  them 
than  to  support  the  recommendations  as  presented  by  the 
President.  My  own  conviction,  based  on  this  and  other 
evidence,  is  that  this  destructive  measure  was  conceived  and 
carried  through  by  three  of  four  active  persons,  who  found 
in  the  new  President  a willing  instrument.  The  majority 
of  the  Board  of  Directors,  consisting  of  high-minded  and 
estimable  citizens,  seem  absorbed  in  their  private  affairs, 
and  the  University  has  claimed  so  little  of  their  interest  that 
they  are  seldom  seen  even  on  great  University  occasions 
like  commencement. 

THE  DEANSHIP. 

The  statement  that  the  rotary  deanship  was  “enacted  at 
the  instance  of  the  faculty  as  the  solution  of  its  own  dif- 
ficulties” is  incorrect.  Up  to  that  time  there  had  been  no 
faculty  difficulties,  nor  is  it  likely  that  any  such  difficulties 
would  have  arisen  had  the  board  allowed  the  deanship  to  re- 
main a faculty  office,  as  it  had  been  hitherto.  Honest  differ- 
ences of  opinion  arose  in  the  faculty,  but  the  actual  facts  of 


78 


the  case  and  the  motives  of  all  concerned,  are  grossly  misrep- 
resented in  this  report. 

That  the  members  of  the  faculty  were  not  all  striving  to 
secure  the  deanship  as  a stepping  stone  to  the  Presidency 
is  proved  by  their  individual  and  collective  efforts  to  secure 
a President  from  outside.  They  have  long  recognized  the 
need  of  a President.  They  appointed  a special  committee 
to  keep  the  subject  before  the  board  and  to  cooperate  with  it 
in  the  effort  to  secure  a President.  Finally,  when  President 
Ayers  was  elected,  the  members  of  the  faculty,  hoping  and 
expecting  to  find  in  him  a wise  counselor  and  an  able  admin- 
istrator, all  assured  him  of  their  earnest  desire  to  cooperate 
with  him  in  every  way  for  the  upbuilding  of  the  University. 
The  good  will  of  members  of  the  faculty  toward  the  Presi- 
dent is  further  emphasized  by  his  immediate  nomination 
for  honorary  membership  in  Phi  Beta  Kappa,  the  first  and 
only  nomination  as  yet  made.  The  President  owes  the  honor 
of  the  key  to  men  whose  honor  he  has  not  sought  to  preserve. 

FALSE  REPORTS  FROM  THE  FACULTY. 

It  is  charged  that  the  board  has  been  misled  in  its  annual 
reports  by  false  representations  from  the  faculty.  This 
charge  carries  with  it  the  humiliating  confession  that  the 
defense  of  the  action  taken  by  the  board  demanded  nothing 
less  than  the  repudiation  of  the  board’s  own  acts  and  the  in- 
validation of  the  entire  past  history  of  the  University,  as 
set  forth  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  board.  The  reports 
of  Dr.  Comegys,  of  revered  memory,  and  the  reports  of 
Major  Jones — whose  vote,  be  it  noted,  was  not  cast  in  ap- 
proval of  this  report — are  all  publicly  discredited,  and  the 
blame  thrown  upon  the  faculty. 

Of  all  members  of  the  board,  Dr.  Comegys,  ever  zealous 
in  the  cause  of  education,  was  a constant  visitor  of  the  Uni- 
versity, and  he  wrote  from  personal  knowledge  and  observa- 
tion. The  faculty  reports  are  truthful  pictures  of  the  growth 
of  the  University,  and  that  it  has  grown  year  by  year  its 
appointed  guardians  do  not  deny. 


79 


WARNINGS  TO  PRESIDENT  AYERS. 

The  committee  states  that  “intimations,  warning  Presi- 
dent Ayers  against  attempting  removals  from  the  faculty, 
were  forwarded  to  him  from  within  that  body  before 
his  removal  to  Cincinnati.”  All  members  of  the  facultv 
who  have  resigned,  or  been  asked  to  resign,  have  been  ques- 
tioned respecting  this  matter ; each  and  every  one  denies  the 
charge  as  regards  himself. 

If  any  such  letters  exist,  let  them  be  produced. 

THE  CHARGE  OF  INSUBORDINATION. 

We  are  charged  with  repeated  manifestations  of  in- 
subordination. 

Under  the  absolute  despotism  of  the  present  administra  - 
tion the  faculty  has  ceased  to  be  a free  deliberative  body, 
and  its  rightful  prerogatives  have  been  disregarded,  in  re- 
spect to  great  university  questions.  There  is  reason  to 
believe  that  a specific  statement  of  our  alleged  acts  of  in- 
subordination would  lead  to  developments  of  great  interest 
to  the  educational  world.  I limit  my  attention  to  the  two 
instances  explicitly  charged  against  us. 

At  a meeting  of  the  board,  on  February  19,  1900,  a re- 
spectful (petition  of  the  faculty,  asking  for  a hearing,  was 
presented  to  the  board  by  Chairman  Kuhn.  A member  of 
the  board,  prominently  identified  with  the  report  under  re- 
view, angrily  sprang  to  his  feet,  censured  the  faculty  for 
gross  insubordination  in  not  forwarding  its  petition  through 
the  proper  channel,  namely,  the  President,  and  moved  that 
the  communication  be  not  received,  but  returned  to  the 
senders. 

The  original  copy  of  that  petition  was  at  that  moment 
in  the  possession  of  the  President  of  the  University,  who 
sat  by  the  side  of  the  Chairman  of  the  board.  Chairman 
Kuhn  has  publicly  admitted  that  he  knew  the  faculty  was 
innocent  of  the  charge,  and  that  the  President  had  the  peti- 
tion in  his  possession  at  that  time,  yet  he  put  the  motion 


80 


of  censure  and  declared  it  carried.  The  President  did  not 
interpose,  but  permitted  the  faculty  to  incur  an  unjust  cen- 
sure, and  he  even  allowed  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Directors  to  vote  under  a grave  misapprehension  as  to  tne 
facts. 

Here  is  a moral  exhibition  of  the  ‘‘fairness”  shown  the 
faculty  in  this  entire  procedure,  a fairness  which  called 
forth  the  resignation  of  Prof.  Myers  in  an  open  letter, 
which  is  referred  to  by  the  committee  as  another  act  of. 
flagrant  insubordination. 

THE  FACULTY  A TEACHING  BODY. 

Again  it  is  made  a matter  of  complaint  that,  with  a few 
exceptions,  tne  members  of  the  faculty  have  done  little 
original  work  and  issued  few  publications  pertaining  to 
their  specialties,  “a  distinct  feature  of  a professor’s  duty.” 

The  members  of  the  faculty  needed  not  to  be  reminded  by 
the  board  of  this  feature  of  a professor’s  duty.  Few  men 
could  have  worked  harder  to  secure  conditions  in  which 
such  work  might  be  adequately  performed. 

During  these  pioneer  years  of  the  University  the  mem- 
bers of  the  faculty  have  devoted  themselves,  of  necessity, 
mainly  to  teaching  as  their  first  and  most  imperative  duty. 

The  limited  income  of  the  University  has  made  it  incum- 
bent upon  each  member  of  the  faculty  to  attempt  to  cover  a 
field  which,  in  the  great  universities,  is  divided  among 
many  professors  and  assistants. 

Last  year  one  member  of  the  faculty  surrendered  $800 
of  his  salary  in  return  for  four  hours  of  his  time  wnioh  he 
desired  to  devote  to  the  work  of  research  and  publication. 
And  here  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  neither  at  the  time 
when  this  arrangement  was  agreed  to  by  the  board,  nor  at 
any  other  time  in  the  past,  have  its  members  manifested 
the  least  interest  in  research  work  or  in  any  way  encouraged 
the  desire  of  the  faculty  to  devote  a portion  of  its  time  to 
such  investigations  or  to  the  issuing  bv  the  members  of  pub- 
lications bearing  on  their  specialties.  On  the  other  hand, 


81 


members  of  the  board  have  persistently  urged  that  the  num- 
ber of  lecture  and  recitation  hours  per  week  of  the  pro- 
.fessors  should  be  increased.  The  new  President  declined 
to  recommend  the  reappointment  of  a second  assistant  in  a 
certain  department,  which  has  on  its  class  rolls  430  students, 
and  he  laid  upon  the  professor  an  increased  burden  of  class- 
room work,  whereby  it  amounted  to  twenty-two  recitation 
hours  per  week.  This  amount  of  teaching,  as  every  uni- 
versity man  knows,  is  wholly  prohibitive  of  effective  work 
in  the  field  of  original  investigation. 

Again,  the  work  of  research  in  all  departments  has  been 
seriously  impeded  by  the  absence  of  an  adequate  library. 
In  the  departments  of  history,  chemistry  and  physics,  possi- 
bly also  in  others,  the  professors  have  placed  their  private 
libraries  at  the  service  of  their  departments.  The  professor 
of  chemistry  has  loaned  to  the  University  for  the  last 
twelve  years  his  large  and  growing  library,  consisting  of 
1,000  volumes,  and  valued  at  not  less  than  $3,000. 

DISPARAGEMENT  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY. 

Nothing  in  this  report  has  caused  greater  pain  and 
astonishment  than  the  attempt  to  disparage  the  reputation 
of  the  University  itself,  and  nothing  more  clearly  reveals 
the  embarrassment  in  which  the  committee  found  itself 
under  the  galling  fire  of  public  criticism. 

If  the  statements  made  concerning  the  standing  of  the 
University  be  true,  then  are  all  diplomas  held  by  our  alumni 
mere  pieces  of  worthless  parchment.  After  years  of  hard 
and  self-denying  study,  the  graduate  beholds  the  symbol 
of  his  attainments  dishonored  by  the  hand  which  conferred 
it.  How  deeply  this  injury  is  felt  by  graduates  and  students 
has  been  made  painfully  manifest  to  the  faculty.  Some 
students,  in  their  discouragement,  intend  to  withdraw  from 
the  University,  and  even  pupils  in  the  high  schools,  prepar- 
ing for  the  University,  have  declared  their  intention  of 
abandoning  their  purpose. 

But  the  case  is  not  as  represented  in  this  report.  That 


82 


the  University  of  Cincinnati  had  fairly  earned,  and  was  en- 
joying, a high  reputation,  at  home  and  abroad,  at  the  time 
of  the  present  disaster,  and  that  the  members  of  its  faculty 
were  held  in  high  esteem  in  the  learned  societies  of  the 
country,  is  proved  by  many  indisputable  facts. 

We  have  established  and  maintained  a high  standard  of 
admission,  a result  depending  in  no  small  measure  upon 
strict  surveillance  of  schools  whose  certificates  is  accepted 
in  lieu  of  an  examination.  Schools  have  been  placed  on  the 
privileged  list  only  after  the  dharacter  of  their  work  has  been 
established  by  the  examination  of  their  pupils. 

The  number  of  students  has  been  steadily  increasing  for 
a number  of  years,  so  as  to  tax  our  expanding  accommoda- 
tions. Benefactions  have  come  to  us  with  increasing  fre- 
quency and  magnitude.  Many  of  our  alumni  have  risen 
quickly  to  positions  of  honor  and  responsibility,  in  which 
they  are  acquitting  themselves  with  distinction.  Our  stu- 
dents and  graduates  have  been  received  into  corresponding 
years  and  graduate  departments  of  the  best  Eastern  col- 
leges. The  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Science,  at  the  suggestion  of  members  of  our  faculty, 
selected  the  University  of  Cincinnati  as  the  depository  of 
its  valuable  and  increasing  library.  About  two  years  ago 
the  learned  society  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa,  composed  of  repre- 
sentatives of  all  the  leading  colleges  in  the  country,  granted 
to  this  University  a charter  in  this  society,  an  honor  never 
conferred  upon  a college  of  questionable  standing.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  the  Board  of  Directors  took  occasion  to 
congratulate  the  faculty  and  the  friends  of  the  University 
when  this  distinction  was  attained. 

After  this  evidence  as  to  what  the  reputation  of  the  Uni- 
versity was,  prior  to  January  12,  1900,  it  is  proper  to  intro- 
duce at  this  point  a pertinent  indication  of  the  fact  that  its 
growing  reputation  then  suddenly  experienced  a shock  from 
which  it  can  not  soon  recover. 

The  learned  society  of  Sigma  Xi  occupies  in  the  field  of 
science  a place  corresponding  to  that  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa  in 


83 


the  field  of  letters.  The  faculty  made  application  for  a char- 
ter in  each  society  about  the  same  time,  but  as  to  Sigma  Xi 
it  was  deemed  wiser  to  await  the  completion  of  our  new 
laboratories  before  pressing  the  petition.  The  following 
correspondence  between  a member  of  our  faculty  and  an 
eminent  man  of  science  in  the  Cornell  faculty  will  explain 
itself : 

“Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y., 

“December  26,  1899. 

“Dear  Prof. : Your  letter  of  December  22,  with 

reference  to  the  reopening  of  the  question  of  Sigma  Xi 
Chapter  for  the  University  of  Cincinnati  is  at  hand.  J 
scarcely  feel  able  to  reply  to  it  without  conference  by  letter 
with  other  members  of  the  council,  but  I will  write  to  Prof. 

and  others,  and  will  let  you  know  the  concensus  of 

opinion.  To  me,  personally,  there  would  seem  to  be  nothing 
to  be  gained  by  further  delay.  The  Pennsylvania  petition  is 
in  and  has  been  acted  on  favorably,  and  I presume  that  the 
establishment  of  a chapter  there  is  only  a matter  of  a few 
weeks.  I congratulate  you  and  your  colleagues  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cincinnati  upon  the  development  which  you  are 
witnessing  and  are  helping  to  bring  about  in  that  institution 
Yours  very  truly,  c *[ 

This  letter  was  answered  on  January  12,  the  very  day  on 
which  resignations  were  abruptly  demanded.  The  following 
reply  was  promptly  received: 

“Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y., 

“January  16,  1900. 

“Dear  Prof. : Your  letter  of  January  12,  enclos- 

ing a statement  to  the  Council  of  Sigma  Xi  is  at  hand.  I 
think,  considering  the  statements  that  have  appeared  in  the 
daily  press,  particularly  the  article  in  the  New  York  Sun  of 
last  Saturday,  with  reference  to  the  radical  plans  of  Presi- 
dent Ayers,  that  it  would  be  an  unwise  moment  to  reopen 
the  question  of  Sigma  Xi  Chapter.  If  you  will  abide  by  my 


84 


judgment,  it  will  be  well  to  let  the  matter  rest  until  what 
would  appear  to  be  a serious  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  insti- 
tution shall  have  been  safely  passed.  Will  you  permit  me, 
therefore,  to  hold  the  statement  until  the  arrival  of  what  we 
may  agree  upon  as  a more  favorable  moment  before  present- 
ing it  to  the  council?  Yours  very  truly,  

While  claiming  for  the  University  of  Cincinnati  an  excel- 
lent reputation  prior  to  January  12,  1900,  I am  making  no 
boastful  comparison  of  an  institution,  not  yet  emerged  from 
a state  of  financial  stringency,  with  old  and  wealthy  institu- 
tions like  Harvard,  whose  princely  income  of  $1,000,000  ex- 
ceeds our  entire  endowment.  Great  universities  are  the  re- 
sult of  evolution  not  of  cataclysms.  At  this  time  it  is  im- 
possible to  foresee  when  the  University  of  Cincinnati  will 
resume  its  normal  development. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ALUMNI  AND  STUDENTS. 

It  is  no  unusual  thing  for  members  of  alumni  and  student 
bodies  to  make  disparaging  remarks  about  some  of  their  in- 
structors. This  is  probably  the  case  at  every  college  in  the 
country.  The  surprising  thing  is  that  a body  O'f  trustees 
willing  to  receive  such  testimony,  and  to  base  thereon  the 
discharge  of  nearly  an  entire  faculty,  should  refuse  to  let 
alumni  and  students  testify  on  the  other  side.  The  out- 
spoken protests  of  prominent  alumni,  the  mass  meetings  of 
students  in  behalf  of  the  faculty,  the  petition  signed  by  over 
one  hundred  students  asking  for  fair  treatment  of  the 
faculty,  these  were  all  ignored. 

IRRECONCILABLE  REFERENCES  TO  THE  PRESIDENT. 

The  committee  characterizes  the  President,  on  the  one 
hand,  as  a man  of  great  administrative  ability,  and  of  high 
qualifications  for  the  office  of  college  President ; on  the  other 
hand,  he  is  depicted  as  an  irresponsible  agent,  entitled  to  ex- 
emption from  further  “gratuitous  persecution a pliant 
instrumentality,  made  use  of  by  the  board  in  order  to  carry 
out  a predetermined  measure. 


85 


This  measure,  sweeping  and  revolutionary  in  character, 
is  greatly /deplored  in  the  educational  world,  as  diminishing 
the  just  and  reasonable  security  of  the  professional  tenure 
in  the  United  States.  This  aspect  of  the  case  is  emphasized 
in  letters  received  from  great  leaders  in  the  educational  field 
of  the  East  and  West.  Being  of  such  a nature,  the  measure 
would  not  have  been  proposed  by  men  o!f  wisdom  in  uni- 
versity administration,  nor  carried  out  by  a college  president 
of  high  qualifications.  The  views  expressed  in  the  Journal 
of  Education  in  the  issue  of  February  8,  1900,  have  met  with 
strong  indorsement. 


THE  REAL  ISSUE  EVADED. 

The  real  issue,  however,  is  that  men  shall  not  be  con- 
demned in  secret  and  unheard.  This  issue,  as  emphasized 
by  the  Citizens’  Committee  and  again  presented  in  the  re- 
spectful faculty  petition,  which  the  board  refused  to  receive, 
has  been  evaded. 

The  committee  expresses  itself  decisively  as  to  the  “utter 
futility”  of  granting  the  professors  a hearing.  This  state- 
ment is  correct.  A hearing  must  prove  utterly  futile  when 
the  jury  has  committed  itself  irrevocably  to  a certain  verdict 
in  advance,  as  the  present  jury  seems  to  have  done.  “There 
is  nothing  hidden  that  shall  not  be  revealed.”  Thus  it  is 
written.  Thomas  French,  Jr. 

Cincinnati , March  22,  1900. 


[From  the  Volksblatt.] 

2Bit  bringen  in  bet  fjeutigen  2fu3gabe  bie  (Sttoibetung 
be§  $|3rof.  ^ren(^  auf  gegen  bie  ^rofefforen  an  bet  fjiefigen 
llniberfitat  etfjobenen  23efd)ufbigungen.  £)a§  ©djriftftiitf  bilbet 
eine  glangenbe  unb  boECftanbige  2BibetIegung  unb  geigt,  toa§ 
eigentlidj  faum  nocf)  eine§  33ett>eife§  bebatf,  toeldjet  fdjmadjooflen 
Ungetedjtigfeit  bie  Uni0etfitat3  = 93efji5tben  fid)  fdjulbig  gemadjt 


86 


fyaben.  2Bir  fbnnen  unter  foldjen  Umftdnben  ben  SSiirgetn  nidjt 
ben  23ormutf  erfparen,  bafe  fie  if)re  ^fftdjt  nid6)t  erfiillen,  inbem 
fie  nicfyt  bie  notfjigen  2Inftalten  gut  Sfteorganifirung  ber  Uniberfitat 
treffen.  Dber  foUte  e§  ifjnen  etma  gleidjgiltig  fein,  toenn  biefe§ 
^nftitut  gefliffentlicfy  ruinirt  unb  ba§  ©elb  ber  (SteuergaiJIer 
gum  genfter  fjinau§gemorfen  mirb? 


